U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

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

One day I saw an article completely photocopied out of a magazine
being submitted with a patent.

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?

No, and it's different (yet again) from what we've been discussing.

I suspect he was right.

He might have been, But, once again, you're postulating a different
situation than the one we're talking about here.

I've said, two or three times, that the argument is not solely based on
one part of the copyright code, but you keep trying to insist otherwise.

Stop that.

--


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

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

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

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

Millions of dollars to Hamas and similar groups. Hussein used to give
huge rewards to the families of suicide bombers. It was one of his
favorite propaganda bits, and not any sort of secret at all.

--


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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

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

Millions of dollars to Hamas and similar groups. Hussein used to give
huge rewards to the families of suicide bombers. It was one of his
favorite propaganda bits, and not any sort of secret at all.

--




Unfair unfair your not allowed to use truth, facts or logic in this NG...




Jim

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Iraq was allegedly "sponsoring terrorism" - I'm curious as to what that
was.

Millions of dollars to Hamas and similar groups. Hussein used to give
huge rewards to the families of suicide bombers. It was one of his
favorite propaganda bits, and not any sort of secret at all.

Okay, what did he do that was unusual for the region?

--
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

"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

"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

Though the Administration has slyly hinted (over and over again)that
Hussein supported Ansar al-Islam, it's just another one of their
rationalizations for invading Iraq that doesn't hold water. Is one to
assume that the Kurds supported the group or that the president
supported the Al-Qaeda cells in New Jersey and Florida? The
Administration has taken to bold faced lying without embarrassment.

"Secretary of State Powell in his February 5 address to the United
Nations Security Council accused Saddam Hussein of collaborating with
Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

Powell accused Baghdad of supporting Ansar al-Islam, a "deadly
terrorist network" based in the ethnic Kurd controlled region of
Northern Iraq. According to Powell, Ansar al-Islam has been
responsible for plotting terror attacks in a number of countries
including France, Britain, and Germany. US officials have also pointed
to the role of Iraq's embassy in Islamabad, which was allegedly used
as a liaison between Al Qaeda operatives and representatives of the
Iraqi government.

Baghdad has no jurisdiction in the ethnic Kurd controlled region of
Northern Iraq. In fact, the region is in the US sphere of influence.
"But the picture is neither complete nor conclusive. Ansar al-Islam
has its bases in the Kurdish-controlled area of Iraq, beyond the
control of Saddam Hussein." (NYT, 14 Febrauary 2003)

There are two regional governments in "liberated Kurdistan", both of
which are supported by Washington. The Kurdistan Democratic Party
(KDP) controls the West, whereas the eastern part is under the
jurisdiction of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The two rival
governments have separate administrations and Armed Forces, which are
financed by US military aid under Clinton's 1998 "Iraq Liberation Act"
of 1998.

Ansar al-Islam, a pre-existing Islamist group, developed into a small
yet significant paramilitary organisation, shortly after the 9/11
attacks. It was largely involved in terrorist attacks directed against
the secular institutions of the Kurdish regional governments. It was
also involved in assassinations of members of the Kurdish PUK. In the
days following Colin Powell's statement, a senior military leader of
PUK forces General Shawkat Haj Mushir was murdered allegedly by Ansar
al-Islam. (The Australian, 11 February 2003) Surrounded in mystery,
the assassination of Shawkat was barely mentioned in the US press.

Since September 2001, Ansar al-Islam has grown in size, incorporating
Al Qaeda fighters who fled Afghanistan in the wake of the US bombings.
(Christian Science Monitor, 15 March 2002) Revealed by Seymour Hersh,
"an unknown number" of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters "were flown to
safety" in a US sponsored airlift organised by Pakistan's Military and
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of these Mujahideen fighters were
evacuated to Kashmir, where they joined Al Qaeda and ISI supported
Islamic terrorist groups. While there is no firm evidence, one
suspects that some of the Mujahideen fighters may also have fled from
Afghanistan to other countries (eg. Northern Iraq), with the tacit
approval of the Pentagon."

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

Okay, what did he do that was unusual for the region?

U.S. Department of State every year is required by law to publish a
report on the "Patterns of Global Terrorism".

The Iraq section of the latest report
(http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt...html/19988.htm)

quote

Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout
the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork
for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the
United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly
instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to
obtain information about US and Israeli targets. The IIS also
threatened dissidents in the Near East and Europe and stole records
and computer files detailing antiregime activity. In December 2002,
the press claimed Iraqi intelligence killed Walid al-Mayahi, a Shi'a
Iraqi refugee in Lebanon and member of the Iraqi National Congress.

Iraq was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for groups
and individuals who direct violenceSuspected leader of Iraqi Kurdish
Islamic extremist group during a press conference (AFP copyrighted
photo) against the United States, Israel, and other countries. Baghdad
overtly assisted two categories of Iraqi-based terrorist
organizations—Iranian dissidents devoted to toppling the Iranian
Government and a variety of Palestinian groups opposed to peace with
Israel. The groups include the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq, the Abu
Nidal organization (although Iraq reportedly killed its leader), the
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Arab Liberation Front (ALF).
In the past year, the PLF increased its operational activity against
Israel and sent its members to Iraq for training for future terrorist
attacks.

Baghdad provided material assistance to other Palestinian terrorist
groups that are in the forefront of the intifadah. The Popular Front
for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, HAMAS, and the
Palestine Islamic Jihad are the three most important groups to whom
Baghdad has extended outreach and support efforts.

Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to encourage
Palestinian terrorism, channeling $25,000 since March through the ALF
alone to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. Public
testimonials by Palestinian civilians and officials and cancelled
checks captured by Israel in the West Bank verify the transfer of a
considerable amount of Iraqi money.

The presence of several hundred al-Qaida operatives fighting with the
small Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam in the northeastern corner
of Iraqi Kurdistan—where the IIS operates—is well documented. Iraq has
an agent in the most senior levels of Ansar al-Islam as well. In
addition, small numbers of highly placed al-Qaida militants were
present in Baghdad and areas of Iraq that Saddam controls. It is
inconceivable these groups were in Iraq without the knowledge and
acquiescence of Saddam's regime. In the past year, al-Qaida operatives
in northern Iraq concocted suspect chemicals under the direction of
senior al-Qaida associate Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi and tried to smuggle
them into Russia, Western Europe, and the United States for terrorist
operations.

Iraq is a party to five of the 12 international conventions and
protocols relating to terrorism.

/quote

Appendix G of that document
(http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt...html/19996.htm) is excerpts
from the speech that Colin Powell delievered to the UN Security
Council on Feb 5, 2003.

No one has seemed to doubt the Zarwaqi evidence, though it wasn't
really connected to September 11 (that seems to have been different
camps, in Afghanistan, rather then the one in Iraq), and they seem to
have bugged out before the hammer came down on Iraq.

Chris Manteuffel

Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Vince Brannigan wrote:


Chad Irby wrote:

Vince Brannigan wrote:


Im a law professor. I teach this stuff.

If you are, the students shold chip in and buy you a keyboard with an
apostrophe key.


im bothered by anyone who misuses the limited monopoly provided by the
copyright law

And the rest of us are bothered by someone claiming to be an expert on
something spouting obvious falsehoods...

Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C.


Well, since you claim to be a lawyer, you should know by now that even a
layman can find out things about laws that most lawyers don't bother to
find out. Like the basic ins and outs of copyright laws. And what
"fair use" is (or is not).



Well chow down on this

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. Prev | Next

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made
of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are. so on all of
the above the copying news stories for the purpose of criticizing the
reporting is fair use.

We know. But we need to remind idiot lawyers daily to remember that
news stories are the intelligent property of the Judicial Branch
of Government, and not the morons in the Legislative Branch
of Government.


Oh, and if you do your homework, the Courts of appeal in Md. and DC
maintain lists of those licensed to practice.

True, but the US Supreme Court maintains no such list. And overrules the
DC Court Of Appeals more often than the Air Force overrules
the Navy.