U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

In article ,
Alan Lothian wrote:

Excellent examples. Both are particles predicted by theory, in the one
case as a necessity to balance all manner of energy equations, in the
other because the mathematics of general relativity do not actually
prohibit them. It took a good deal of effort to overcome the "absence
of evidence" problem for the neutrino, but the job was eventually done.

But of course it was. Say all that very quickly, with earnest enthusiasm
(and maybe also a Punjabi accent) and you have a fine piece of gentle
stereotype character comedy. Well, with a few glasses of vino, you do ...

C.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:24:08 -0600, Tex Houston wrote:

How about one of those organizations being hired to ask the question:

Should this forum return to talking about military aviation?

Good idea :-)

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

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

Come now--you know as well as I do that the Iraqi situation had been
boiling long before 9-11.


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

So, would you therefore sanction "punishing" the Republic of Ireland
because some (misguided) Irish citizens have funded, supported, etc.,
violence in Northern Ireland?


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

If you can't comprehend that Iraq broke the ceasefire agreement, not
to mention repeated UN resolutions, then I have misjudged you.


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?

Of course you did--he attended a mosque in the UK, right? Kind of like
a madras in a manner of speaking... He made his money in the UK,
right? Gee, sounds very sinister to me.


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.

Whatever JDCC is...?


, programs?

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

The mere maintenace of an ongoing effort to sustain their chemical
weapons potential; interesting article in the paper here last week
that indicated there is evidence that Saddam was pursuing the
development/maintenance of "dual use" facilities beyond any domestic
need in order to allow for rapid manufacture of chemical weapons. That
sounds like a "program" to me.


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.

In a manner of speaking it is, since it is just a continuation of
various violations of both the ceasefire agreement and UN resolutions
requiring complete WMD disarmament and *complete" disclosure. That
latter requirement alone justifies action--he *never* gave full and
complete disclosure (even though each successive "full and complete"
disclosure used that exact wording, and yet each listed a few more
things that we forced them to acknowledge). The fact that their AS
missiles exceeded the mandated range limit is another violation.

If you are gonna try and portray Saddam as being blameless, you have a
tough row to hoe, as we say. Likewise, if you are going to try to cast
the Saudis in the same light as a regime that routinely butchered
masses of its own citizens (what is the current count of mass graves
up to, some 150 or more?), you are gonna have to invest in a whole new
line of farm implements.


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.

So you claim that there were no programs in violation? How about that
missile?


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?

Firstly, the DPRK has a history of being long on wind and short on
action, whereas Saddam had a somewhat different reputation when it
came to using WMD's. Secondly, the DPRK in terms of its WMD program is
not in flagrant violation of a recent ceasefire agreement. Lastly,
other methods are currently being used to handle the DPRK; different
solutions to different problems. You are the only person I know of who
seems to think that foreign policy has to have some kind of
"playbook", where you must stick to Plan A when situation X, or any
situation involving WMD's, pops up. Sounds a bit clumsy to me.


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.

Please show where WMD's are what has kept the US out of the DPRK. Kind
of hard to do, given that we have been sort of eyeball-to-eyeball for
many decades *prior* to their development of WMD's, and never stormed
back across the DMZ during all of those years. So how have these
magical WMD's all of a sudden accounted for their "security"? I
believe GWB and his cabinet are smart enough to realize that the DPRK
is already imploding--and besides, the DPRK does not have France and
germany rooting for them on the sidelines, as we saw recently in Iraq.


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

Bad logic (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) you are using here.


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?

Rather different situation. Since 1953 our objective on the Korean
peninsula has been to secure the ROK from aggression--which we have
done, along with growing (and now majority) effort from our ROK
allies. Even with those magical WMD's, ahve you seen Kim invade across
the DMZ? Gee, it looks like our efforts are actually working after
all...


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.

Different situations entirely, and I suspect that deep down you
realize that as well as I do. If you disagree with our going into
Iraq, fine--but don't tether it to this ridiculous "why aren't we
going into Korea" crap.



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)

Actually, I find "effects based" operations to be no more than common
sense, and if you look into writings as old as Sun Tzu I believe you
will find evidence of "effects based" operations. One example: you
want to stop production at factory X (effect equals no production) in
Lower Armpitia; the classic solution has (all too frequently) been to
bomb factory X, first with multitudes of HE and incendiaries that also
happen to blot out the surrounding village, and later with a few PGM's
that take out just the factory, except for the 10% that may also
clobber part of the village. But if you are seriously effects-based,
you instead take out the power transformer stations that supply
factory X, maybe even using those nifty graphite warheads, and leave
the factory intact and ready to go back into production after you kick
the nasty Armpitian dictator out of office. I believe one could argue
that the oil campaign instituted by 8th AF and BC during the latter
part of WWII was also "effects based", in a manner of speaking, though
no to the level that we are now applying that term at the tactical
level in terms of targeting.

Brooks

On 16 Sep 2003 20:34:55 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
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?

Of course you did--he attended a mosque in the UK, right?

Not only that, he was introduced to Islam while in prison.


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:31:27 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
El *******o El *******o@El *******o.com wrote:

You seem to try to draw a bright line between quoting a whole story
and a part of it. Where in the law do you find such a bright line?
Yes, the quoted section lists "substantiality" as a factor among
other factors in its analysis of a use as being fair or not.

If the law were as you view it, there would be no need to discuss
"substantiality" in the case of a work being wholly reproduced. There
would be a fifth factor, or a sentence in the current four factors,
which would read something like "complete reproduction of a work is
strictly a violation of the law in all cases."

"Substantiality" keeps people from trying the "I quoted everything
except the last sentence" loophole.

The word "substantiality," as used here means "portion used." Which
would be the amount used relative to the whole. So the more
"substantial" the defendant reproduces or uses the original work, the
more this factor favors the plaintiff.

But this is just one in four factors. The law does not dictate how
much weight each factor has, that would be for the court to decide.
Courts interpret the law because laws can't be written to cover all
possibilities.

What it boils down to, for this case: quoting entire news stories to
Usenet is breaking copyright.

You seem to think this one factor outweighs all the rest. That is
possible, but common sense would dictate that each has equal weight,
since the legislature did not indicate otherwise.

Can you show judicial precedent indicating that this one factor should
outweigh all the rest when substantially all the article is copied?

In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
You are claiming that Saudi Arabia, as in their government, sanctioned
the 9-11 attack? I don't think so...

Did Iraq?

Come now--you know as well as I do that the Iraqi situation had been
boiling long before 9-11.

True, but not what I asked. How much involvement did Iraq have in the
9/11 attacks?

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

So, would you therefore sanction "punishing" the Republic of Ireland
because some (misguided) Irish citizens have funded, supported, etc.,
violence in Northern Ireland?

Depends. Are the Irish flinging funds at the terrorists? Are they
willing to co-operate with us? Will the Gardai share information with UK
law enforcement on cross-border crimes?

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

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

If you can't comprehend that Iraq broke the ceasefire agreement, not
to mention repeated UN resolutions, then I have misjudged you.

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

Did we fund his particular sect?

Of course you did--he attended a mosque in the UK, right?

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

That's a key distinction: tolerating it because they haven't been proven
to break the law, is not the same as paying their bills at home or
overseas.

He made his money in the UK,
right?

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.

Gee, sounds very sinister to me.

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

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.

Whatever JDCC is...?

Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre. Based at Shrivenham; one of the
'head sheds'.

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

The mere maintenace of an ongoing effort to sustain their chemical
weapons potential; interesting article in the paper here last week
that indicated there is evidence that Saddam was pursuing the
development/maintenance of "dual use" facilities beyond any domestic
need in order to allow for rapid manufacture of chemical weapons. That
sounds like a "program" to me.

Hasn't aired here yet.

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

In a manner of speaking it is,

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.

since it is just a continuation of
various violations of both the ceasefire agreement and UN resolutions
requiring complete WMD disarmament and *complete" disclosure. That
latter requirement alone justifies action--he *never* gave full and
complete disclosure (even though each successive "full and complete"
disclosure used that exact wording, and yet each listed a few more
things that we forced them to acknowledge).

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.

Sort of like looking for the huge quantities of grain and meat that
flooded from Soviet collective farms every year... the paperwork says
they existed and the leadership swears blind that the only dietary
problem in the USSR is people exploding from overeating. Yet walk the
markets and see if you can find the food.

The fact that their AS
missiles exceeded the mandated range limit is another violation.

Yep, that one rang the bell. The Al-Samoud, wasn't it? (Much quibbling
about payload and whether the ranges achieved were representative, but
the Iraqis were stupid to risk it and got caught)

If you are gonna try and portray Saddam as being blameless, you have a
tough row to hoe, as we say.

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)

Likewise, if you are going to try to cast
the Saudis in the same light as a regime that routinely butchered
masses of its own citizens

The Saudis aren't into killing prisoners that anyone can prove (meaning
if it happens it's few and hidden) but you would not want to be accused
let alone imprisoned under their system. "Innocent until you can't bear
another stroke of the cane across your feet, or until you come up with
enough cash".

You're not going to find many admirable systems of criminal justice in
the region.

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

So you claim that there were no programs in violation?

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

How about that
missile?

Clear violation, but a rather thin cause for war.

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?

Firstly, the DPRK has a history of being long on wind and short on
action, whereas Saddam had a somewhat different reputation when it
came to using WMD's.

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?

Secondly, the DPRK in terms of its WMD program is
not in flagrant violation of a recent ceasefire agreement.

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.

Iraq violated UN agreements - so what, the UN is useless anyway?

Lastly,
other methods are currently being used to handle the DPRK; different
solutions to different problems.

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

You are the only person I know of who
seems to think that foreign policy has to have some kind of
"playbook", where you must stick to Plan A when situation X, or any
situation involving WMD's, pops up. Sounds a bit clumsy to me.

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?

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.

Please show where WMD's are what has kept the US out of the DPRK.

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.

Kind
of hard to do, given that we have been sort of eyeball-to-eyeball for
many decades *prior* to their development of WMD's, and never stormed
back across the DMZ during all of those years.

For a lot of them you lacked spare forces.

I
believe GWB and his cabinet are smart enough to realize that the DPRK
is already imploding--and besides, the DPRK does not have France and
germany rooting for them on the sidelines, as we saw recently in Iraq.

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

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

Bad logic (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) you are using here.

Show me something better.

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?

Rather different situation. Since 1953 our objective on the Korean
peninsula has been to secure the ROK from aggression--which we have
done, along with growing (and now majority) effort from our ROK
allies. Even with those magical WMD's, ahve you seen Kim invade across
the DMZ? Gee, it looks like our efforts are actually working after
all...

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)


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.

Different situations entirely, and I suspect that deep down you
realize that as well as I do. If you disagree with our going into
Iraq, fine--but don't tether it to this ridiculous "why aren't we
going into Korea" crap.

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?

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

(eyeball-deep in how to turn doctrine about 'effects based operation'
into useful facts)

Actually, I find "effects based" operations to be no more than common
sense, and if you look into writings as old as Sun Tzu I believe you
will find evidence of "effects based" operations.

It's like systems engineering: it's "what works". The best have always
done it, others have struggled with it, and it ends up a named
discipline simply so it can be codified and taught as an aid to
practicioners. Trouble is, the key is informed flexibility... it's a
good concept but implementing it is less easy.

In the process it gets distorted, and some jump on a passing bandwagon.
"Hey, if we say this is an 'effects oriented' system we might get
funding this time!"

--
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

In article ,
El *******o El *******o@El *******o.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:31:27 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

The word "substantiality," as used here means "portion used." Which
would be the amount used relative to the whole. So the more
"substantial" the defendant reproduces or uses the original work, the
more this factor favors the plaintiff.

Exactly. And if the infringement is substantial enough, like 100%, it
can outweigh the other factors completely, even if they're nonexistent
in that case. In *this* example, though, the other factors have some
weight, too.

But this is just one in four factors. The law does not dictate how
much weight each factor has, that would be for the court to decide.
Courts interpret the law because laws can't be written to cover all
possibilities.

But you can look at the guidelines and use some common sense, and figure
out that it's not a hard question.

What it boils down to, for this case: quoting entire news stories to
Usenet is breaking copyright.

You seem to think this one factor outweighs all the rest. That is
possible, but common sense would dictate that each has equal weight,
since the legislature did not indicate otherwise.

Except that in the case we're talking about, some of the other factors
are also included. Number of copies, for example. It's just that the
most obvious part is fulfilled 100%.

Can you show judicial precedent indicating that this one factor should
outweigh all the rest when substantially all the article is copied?

I already did cite the Scientology case, where the substantiality part
was the trigger.

And it's nearly impossible to infringe 100% on one part, while getting
zero on the rest of your "score."

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:09:55 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
.. .
You are claiming that Saudi Arabia, as in their government, sanctioned
the 9-11 attack? I don't think so...

Did Iraq?

Come now--you know as well as I do that the Iraqi situation had been
boiling long before 9-11.

True, but not what I asked. How much involvement did Iraq have in the
9/11 attacks?

AFAIK, none.

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

Indeed.

Did we fund his particular sect?

Of course you did--he attended a mosque in the UK, right?

Did we pay the mosque, or just allow it to run

The latter, probably.

He made his money in the UK,
right?

How much money did he make?

We wasn't rich. He had a troubled background, his parents split up
when he was young, he went into a life of crime and turned to Islam
while in prison.

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 surprised he didn't do it in the loo.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
You are claiming that Saudi Arabia, as in their government, sanctioned
the 9-11 attack? I don't think so...

Did Iraq?

Come now--you know as well as I do that the Iraqi situation had been
boiling long before 9-11.

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. 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?


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

So, would you therefore sanction "punishing" the Republic of Ireland
because some (misguided) Irish citizens have funded, supported, etc.,
violence in Northern Ireland?

Depends. Are the Irish flinging funds at the terrorists?

I believe some were.

Are they
willing to co-operate with us?

A lot apparently were not. And who is this "they"? You are out for the
blood of the Saudis because some individuals doubtless supported OBL,
so are you now shifting the Irish analogy to a collective "they"? Or
is it OK for *some* Irishmen to have supported the PIRA, but not OK
for some Saudis to have supported AQ? 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?

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--you are all fired up to slam Saudi Arabia because of
the actions of a few, yet you now only think of the *governmental*
response when the Irish analogy is posed? Put them on the same scale.


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, just as the Irish government did not support the PIRA
in the seventies/eighties--same-same.


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

If you can't comprehend that Iraq broke the ceasefire agreement, not
to mention repeated UN resolutions, then I have misjudged you.

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

I have not said they did. 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 (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).


Did we fund his particular sect?

Of course you did--he attended a mosque in the UK, right?

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?
Same-same, again.


That's a key distinction: tolerating it because they haven't been proven
to break the law, is not the same as paying their bills at home or
overseas.

He made his money in the UK,
right?

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?


Gee, sounds very sinister to me.

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


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.

Whatever JDCC is...?

Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre. Based at Shrivenham; one of the
'head sheds'.

Last I heard we still use "WMD".


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

The mere maintenace of an ongoing effort to sustain their chemical
weapons potential; interesting article in the paper here last week
that indicated there is evidence that Saddam was pursuing the
development/maintenance of "dual use" facilities beyond any domestic
need in order to allow for rapid manufacture of chemical weapons. That
sounds like a "program" to me.

Hasn't aired here yet.

Here are a few:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ied_on_deceit/

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

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




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

In a manner of speaking it is,

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.


since it is just a continuation of
various violations of both the ceasefire agreement and UN resolutions
requiring complete WMD disarmament and *complete" disclosure. That
latter requirement alone justifies action--he *never* gave full and
complete disclosure (even though each successive "full and complete"
disclosure used that exact wording, and yet each listed a few more
things that we forced them to acknowledge).

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.


Sort of like looking for the huge quantities of grain and meat that
flooded from Soviet collective farms every year... the paperwork says
they existed and the leadership swears blind that the only dietary
problem in the USSR is people exploding from overeating. Yet walk the
markets and see if you can find the food.

The fact that their AS
missiles exceeded the mandated range limit is another violation.

Yep, that one rang the bell. The Al-Samoud, wasn't it? (Much quibbling
about payload and whether the ranges achieved were representative, but
the Iraqis were stupid to risk it and got caught)

If you are gonna try and portray Saddam as being blameless, you have a
tough row to hoe, as we say.

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. We now have the Wesley Clark telling us
how screwed up everything is (the same Clark who predicted doom and
gloom for the initial offensive, and the same Clark who apparently
told the Clinton Whotehouse that Milosevic would cave in after only a
few days of air attacks); gee, the fact that he has been running for
President himself (yeah, he just declared, but no mistake about it, he
has been running for a while now) might have something to do with it.
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. The major threat seems to be those
disenfranchised by the allied action (namely, Saddam's thigs).


Likewise, if you are going to try to cast
the Saudis in the same light as a regime that routinely butchered
masses of its own citizens

The Saudis aren't into killing prisoners that anyone can prove (meaning
if it happens it's few and hidden) but you would not want to be accused
let alone imprisoned under their system. "Innocent until you can't bear
another stroke of the cane across your feet, or until you come up with
enough cash".

You're not going to find many admirable systems of criminal justice in
the region.

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

So you claim that there were no programs in violation?

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.


How about that
missile?

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.


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?

Firstly, the DPRK has a history of being long on wind and short on
action, whereas Saddam had a somewhat different reputation when it
came to using WMD's.

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.


Secondly, the DPRK in terms of its WMD program is
not in flagrant violation of a recent ceasefire agreement.

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.


Iraq violated UN agreements - so what, the UN is useless anyway?

They also violated the ceasefire agreement that ended the offensive in
91. Face it, the US was acting before UN authorization *routinely*
during GWII--if you doubt that, check out the timeline of US actions
versus UN resolutions.


Lastly,
other methods are currently being used to handle the DPRK; different
solutions to different problems.

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*?


You are the only person I know of who
seems to think that foreign policy has to have some kind of
"playbook", where you must stick to Plan A when situation X, or any
situation involving WMD's, pops up. Sounds a bit clumsy to me.

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.


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.

Please show where WMD's are what has kept the US out of the DPRK.

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?


Kind
of hard to do, given that we have been sort of eyeball-to-eyeball for
many decades *prior* to their development of WMD's, and never stormed
back across the DMZ during all of those years.

For a lot of them you lacked spare forces.

That's a cop-out, Paul. Either they were secure without their WMD's,
proving that possession of same is not a simple defense against US
action, or they were not--which is it?


I
believe GWB and his cabinet are smart enough to realize that the DPRK
is already imploding--and besides, the DPRK does not have France and
germany rooting for them on the sidelines, as we saw recently in Iraq.

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

I would not be, in this case, as the PRC has reportedly held some
frank discussions with Kim to discuss the realities of the situation
(one report included the claim that they told the Koreans that unlike
the last time, no screaming hordes of PLA "volunteers" would be
streaming to their assistance if it comes to armed conflict with the
US), and has been working with the US in the recent talks. This is an
opportunity for the PRC to engender soe goodwill from the US, at no
real cost to themselves.


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

Bad logic (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) you are using here.

Show me something better.

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


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?

Rather different situation. Since 1953 our objective on the Korean
peninsula has been to secure the ROK from aggression--which we have
done, along with growing (and now majority) effort from our ROK
allies. Even with those magical WMD's, ahve you seen Kim invade across
the DMZ? Gee, it looks like our efforts are actually working after
all...

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. Like I said, different situations.



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.

Different situations entirely, and I suspect that deep down you
realize that as well as I do. If you disagree with our going into
Iraq, fine--but don't tether it to this ridiculous "why aren't we
going into Korea" crap.

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.


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

(eyeball-deep in how to turn doctrine about 'effects based operation'
into useful facts)

Actually, I find "effects based" operations to be no more than common
sense, and if you look into writings as old as Sun Tzu I believe you
will find evidence of "effects based" operations.

It's like systems engineering: it's "what works". The best have always
done it, others have struggled with it, and it ends up a named
discipline simply so it can be codified and taught as an aid to
practicioners. Trouble is, the key is informed flexibility... it's a
good concept but implementing it is less easy.

In the process it gets distorted, and some jump on a passing bandwagon.
"Hey, if we say this is an 'effects oriented' system we might get
funding this time!"

Sounds like the even larger "transformation bandwagon" (which is now
more aptly a complete train...).

Brooks

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:36:40 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
El *******o El *******o@El *******o.com wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 17:31:27 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

The word "substantiality," as used here means "portion used." Which
would be the amount used relative to the whole. So the more
"substantial" the defendant reproduces or uses the original work, the
more this factor favors the plaintiff.

Exactly. And if the infringement is substantial enough, like 100%, it
can outweigh the other factors completely, even if they're nonexistent
in that case. In *this* example, though, the other factors have some
weight, too.

But this is just one in four factors. The law does not dictate how
much weight each factor has, that would be for the court to decide.
Courts interpret the law because laws can't be written to cover all
possibilities.

But you can look at the guidelines and use some common sense, and figure
out that it's not a hard question.

What it boils down to, for this case: quoting entire news stories to
Usenet is breaking copyright.

You seem to think this one factor outweighs all the rest. That is
possible, but common sense would dictate that each has equal weight,
since the legislature did not indicate otherwise.

Except that in the case we're talking about, some of the other factors
are also included. Number of copies, for example. It's just that the
most obvious part is fulfilled 100%.

Can you show judicial precedent indicating that this one factor should
outweigh all the rest when substantially all the article is copied?

I already did cite the Scientology case, where the substantiality part
was the trigger.

And it's nearly impossible to infringe 100% on one part, while getting
zero on the rest of your "score."

I worked at an IP firm, not as a lawyer (I am not an IP lawyer) but
as a temp. Patent firms submit huge quantities of literature with
their applications to substantiate their claims.

One day I saw an article completely photocopied out of a magazine
being submitted with a patent. I asked the lawyer in charge if this
was right. We have a copyrighted work being used by a for-profit law
firm to make money by furthering their client's interests and
supporting their "inventor's" patents. Shouldn't the law firm have to
get permission and even pay the original authors for this?

He said "fair use."

Maybe he was wrong. But he was submitting it to the Patent Trade
Office. A place which knows something about intellectual property
rights. If he was wrong, every day a US governmental office (the PTO)
gets tons and tons of paper of illegally copied articles, and doesn't
say a word. Is this what you believe is going on?

I suspect he was right. And that, although the articles are copied in
their entirety, the "use" of the articles is what makes it "fair." In
this case, even though the law firm is "for-profit," the use
encourages freedom of information to encourage people to patent
things. And the government considers that a good thing.

Another exception would be "newsworthiness." If somebody wrote an
enflamatory article, and a group of people read the article. The group
consequently murdered a Senator. That article would be publishible in
its entirety in news stories about the murder without paying the
author a cent.