BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 07:35 PM

I just wish I could watch all this from a distance. Say, Arcturus Four.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 07:21 PM

North Korea with nukes ?

Come back MacArthur, all is forgiven.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 06:31 PM

You know, GUEST, I rarely pay much attention to what GUESTS post, even more rarely reply to them, but in this instance I think you may be right.

That's -30-

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 04:23 PM

Well, danged! I gotta break rank here fir just a minute and say how glad I am that Junior hasn't cranked up his huffin'-n-puffin' routine in regards to North Korea. And I would hope he's learned by having his own cowboy butt painted into a corner on Iraq that if you're gonna call someone out, be careful, because they might just take you up on it.

Yeah, I'm not ready to promote Junior to *educatable*, but I believe the boy is at least *trainable*. Now if he can just keep the other two Stooges queit here, there is a chance for some quiet diplomacy and progress.

Oh, BTW, I think this may prove that Junior knows Saddam doesn't have a nuclear weapon. I mean, N. Korea comes out and say it has one and Junior's being quiet. Real easy to bark at someone when you know what the have or don't have,

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 02:28 PM

DougR A friendly word of advice. Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 02:24 PM

Sweet muthah. So what now, Georgie -- ya gonna invade N. Korea AND Baghdad AND .... ?

Tough spot you walked your way into. Maybe you could invite Saddam in on your side against the N. Koreans, kinda like Russia fighting the Germans, huh?


What the hey -- war's a game everyone can play!!

Sheeesh!!

Thanks for the bad news, Don -- better to have it on the table, I reckon. ANyone remember how to build a bomb shelter???


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:18 PM

I checked a bit further on this. I'm posting a rather lengthy article rather that just a link, because the nature of the Seattle Times web site is such that the article will disappear tomorrow. So here's the whole thing.

This really puts the cat among the pigeons. . . .

Don Firth

WASHINGTON — The North Korean government has acknowledged for the first time that it has been secretly developing nuclear weapons for years in violation of international agreements, Bush administration officials said last night.

A North Korean diplomat also made a vague reference to having "more powerful" weapons as well, U.S. officials said. Some analysts took that to mean biological or chemical weapons.

The Bush administration was stunned by the admission during U.S. talks this month in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital. Yesterday the administration dispatched envoys to the region to talk with U.S. allies.

North Korea also told the U.S. it was terminating an agreement under which it had agreed to freeze its plutonium weapons program in exchange for the construction of civilian nuclear power reactors by the international community and a 20-year supply of heating oil while construction was under way.

The agreement, negotiated under President Clinton, averted what might have been an armed conflict with the United States over North Korea's moves toward reprocessing plutonium into nuclear weapons fuel.

The surprise disclosure poses another serious challenge to President Bush's foreign-policy team, which is grappling with an unstable Afghanistan, the resurgence of suspected al-Qaida terrorist attacks from Kuwait to Yemen and Indonesia, and the prospect of war with Iraq, which it also suspects of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

The administration yesterday called on North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to halt the weapons project and began consultations with Congress about what to do next, officials said.

Some Bush aides, particularly at the Pentagon, and some Republicans in Congress had viewed the 1994 agreement with suspicion and charged North Korea with violating it by refusing to submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Shortly after Bush took office, he repudiated efforts by Clinton in the waning days of his term to strike a deal with North Korea on its export of ballistic missiles and other issues. The U.S. stance deeply embarrassed South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung, who has pursued a "sunshine policy" of diplomacy with the North.

In 1994, intelligence estimates said that North Korea had produced enough plutonium to make one or two bombs. That assessment still stands, according to administration officials.

In 1998, in response to intelligence reports that North Korea had been digging a massive underground facility in Kumchang-ri believed to contain a nuclear weapons development site, the United States sent a team of inspectors to see if it was cheating on the agreement to abandon a nuclear-weapons program. The team found nothing but an empty cave.

Administration officials last night offered mixed assessments of the implications of North Korea's announcement, with some predicting it could lead to a military confrontation on the Korean peninsula and others saying it could signal a bid by North Korea to create an opening to the United States.

One high-ranking official reported that some administration leaders believe "we should go to war tomorrow." He added, however, that President Bush has been "very calm, cool and collected. He doesn't need another crisis." [Emphasis mine—DF]

Bush in January called North Korea a member of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and Iran.

Yet the announcement by the North Korean government came amid a string of surprising moves by Kim, long criticized for peddling dangerous weapons and oppressing an impoverished population. In recent weeks, the Pyongyang government has apologized for a naval battle with South Korea on June 29 and for the abduction of Japanese citizens in the 1970s.

After the overtures to South Korea and Japan, the U.S. sent Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly to Pyongyang on Oct. 3 to revive contacts.

Here's what happened, according to U.S. officials:

Kelly's delegation met with North Korean officials on a wide range of issues, including demands that North Korea cease development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles and other threatening behavior.

When the U.S. team confronted the North Koreans with undisclosed evidence of a nuclear program, this one based on enriched uranium, the North Koreans initially denied the accusation, calling it a "fabrication" designed to pressure leader Kim Jong Il's regime.

But the following day, a more senior official, First Foreign Minister Kang Sok Joo, met with the U.S. delegation. U.S. officials said Kang told them: "We have a nuclear weapons program and more."

The Americans said they did not know why the North Koreans, considered masters of stonewalling, had decided to confess.

"The last meeting we had was with Kang Sok Joo, and Secretary Kelly told him in the sternest terms that this was most unwelcome," an official said. As to the North Korean reaction, "I would not describe it as apologetic," the official said. "Kang Sok Joo was assertive, aggressive about it."

Kelly and his delegation departed Pyongyang as soon as they could and flew to Seoul, where they informed South Korea's President Kim, who has vigorously sought to develop ties with North Korea.

They then flew on to Tokyo, where they informed Japanese authorities. There was no reaction from Tokyo, but South Korean officials called on the North to abide by their commitments to freeze their nuclear programs.

The South Korean government was planning an emergency Cabinet meeting today.

It was unclear why the North Koreans had embarked on a uranium-based weapons program, rather than using the plutonium stockpiles they are believed to have. Uranium-based weapons are easier to produce and require a less sophisticated design. Because the first U.S. uranium-based nuclear bombs were dropped in 1945, there is a wealth of publicly available material about how to make them, weapons experts said.

However, crude uranium bombs are big and heavy, so it was unclear whether the North Koreans would have the technical capability to mount them onto their Roh Dong ballistic missiles, which are believed to have a range long enough to hit Alaska.

Despite the North Korean announcement, the administration says it does not know the full extent of North Korea's nuclear capabilities, nor do experts know what Kang meant when he referred to more powerful weapons. Last night, they said they assume he meant weapons of mass destruction, which typically include biological and chemical weapons.

Administration officials say they hope for a peaceful resolution. But the situation confronts the administration with a significant problem as it contemplates going to war with Iraq. The suspicion that Iraq continues to hoard chemical and biological weapons is cited by the Bush administration as grounds to threaten that nation with an invasion. By that logic, North Korea — which the CIA says has one or two nuclear bombs, as well as long-range ballistic missiles — might be a more apt target than Iraq.

But any U.S. military action could provoke the North Koreans to attack South Korea, where 37,000 U.S. troops are based.

For now, the Bush administration is suspending its offer to engage North Korea — a pledge of an economic and political opening in return for reductions in North Korea's military posture and policies of weapons proliferation, along with an improvement in humanitarian conditions at home.

The North Korean admission comes at an awkward time for both South Korea and Japan, which despite the reservations of the Bush administration have tried to accelerate their plans to improve ties with the isolated North.

On Tuesday, five Japanese citizens abducted by North Korean agents nearly a quarter-century ago returned to Tokyo for an emotional homecoming "reunion" with their families. The visit was one tangible result of an unprecedented summit held last month between Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and North Korean leader Kim Jong.

Japan — the only nation ever attacked with nuclear bombs — is scheduled to host talks this month with North Korean officials in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on further steps toward normalizing relations. Today it said those talks are still on.

Since a historic meeting between the North's Kim Jong Il and the South's Kim Dae Jung in June 2000, North Korea has received large amounts of international aid, signed a deal with the South to reopen a railroad and announced tentative free-market reforms, all of which could be jeopardized by failure to live up to its agreements.

Compiled from The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Knight Ridder Newspapers and The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:48 PM

Heard on the news this morning that North Korea has just admitted that they have a nuclear program, have had for some years, and don't give a particular hoot who knows it or who does or doesn't like it. They also have a missile program: at least intermediate range ballistic missiles, and perhaps longer range. Everybody's fully aware that they've been testing them (firing them out over the Pacific). This particularly bugged the Japanese.

It seems to me that North Korea might just constitute a bigger threat than Iraq. What now, George?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:31 PM

That's it!! Now they've gone too far!! DOesn't this qualify? Can I nuke 'em under the NATO charter?? Pleeeze?

Georgie Pie

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bagpuss
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 06:00 AM

Things are really getting serious now....

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021017/4/dbz5c.html

Prince Andrew jostled by Iraqis
Prince Andrew has been jostled by an Iraqi delegation which was buying arms at a trade fair in Jordan.

The Prince was at the Sofex exhibition in Amman this week to support British companies.

But the royal visitor was forced to look in the opposite direction when 10 Iraqi representatives carried out a "strategic jostle" into the Prince's party.

The BBC said an aide of Prince Andrew told him: "It's the Iraqis, Sir."

The Prince replied: "God, the Iraqis" - and looked quickly in the opposite direction.

Prince Andrew's equerry Major Rob Olney told Today that the Prince was not at the fair to meet the Iraqi delegation, adding: "He's here to promote British investment and trade here in the Middle East."

Defence Minister Lord Bach, who was also there, said British sellers at the fair were not targeting Iraqi delegates.

He added: "Anyone can come and look, but I think looking won't help them very much. There is a United Nations resolution that embargoes defence exports to Iraq.

"We have close relations with many of the Arab states and I am delighted that we do.

"They are a force for stability in this troubled region. Many of them are moving towards democracy in their own way, in their own time."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:23 AM

And quite a bit stronger. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 05:09 PM

True enough. So is the USA of course, though it's a little bit bigger.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 05:05 PM

Oh, and Rick, on Bush's rhetoric. That type of approach does not appeal to me either. I don't think Bush is a good communicator, though I do believe he is getting much better at reading his speeches. He must be doing something or saying something, though, that appeals to many people as his poll figures remain at an all time high. Not on the Mudcat, of course. We may forget, sometimes, that the Mudcat community is only a small part of the Universe (as important as it might be).

DougR (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:56 PM

But when the disgruntled employees are the people who know more about it than The Leader... Well, of course, that often does happen. And firms go bust.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:49 PM

Disgruntled employees. Big deal. Ever know a leader who made decisions EVERYBODY agreed with Bobert? Hmmmmmm? Other than Saddam of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:26 PM

Not to change the subject too much, but in today's Washington Post there ia a long article about the mistrust between Rumsfield and lots of folks accross the Potomac in the Pentegon. According to the article Rumsfield has found a few *yes men* and doesn't want to hear the concernes of folks that don't agree with him... Hmmmmmmmm?

"Things are more fouled up [at the Pentagon] than I've ever seen them" said one former defense official sympathetic with Rumsfield... Washington Post, 10/16... Hmmmmmmm? Wonder how those who are not sympathetic with Rumsfield think?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:17 PM

Well - speaking as one who has done his bit in Democratic Elections I know how hard it can be to get voters to attend a Polling station. Now I can only think that SH is so loved that each and every one of the Iraqui electorate was so impressed they all spontaneously went and voted. Or was the certainty of retribution for not voting a more motivating factor ? In which case I have my doubts about any amature reading of public oppinion in Iraq.

Remember, as we have seen in Florida, its not the votes that count - but who counts the votes.

And In case you'all have forgotten, or mislaid the file - here is a blicky to HM Governments "Iraq dossier" *Pdf download hit the bottom middle link on the index page.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 02:01 PM

It is interesting for me to read about Baader-Meinhof here. I think McGrath is completely right with the analysis of the deeper reasons for the end of that group ('gang' was the official German PC term).

On the surface, however, like the timing of the end (why now and not two years later) the end of the GDR had a minor influence.

1990: the end of the GDR
1992: the Kinkel initiative in which Kinkel offered freedom for some of them for the end of violence (I guess the end of the GDR gave the West-German government the inner strength to make that offer at that particular time)
1992: renouncing violence by the RAF in response to Kinkel
March 1998: official end of the RAF 'today we end this project...the result (of our fight) is our harshest critic...the unification of the Bundesrepublik and the GDR required a new and international liberation project...(To try do do so in the 90s) turned out to be unrealistic'

But despite their rhetoric mentioning the GDR, the deep reason for their demise has been hit by McGrath. Teribus might have a minor point re the actual timing of what was unavoidable anyway.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:51 PM

HE woulda got 110% but he needed the money for uranium....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:41 PM

Naw, 100% doesn't impress me. Now 110%...that would impress me. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: ballpienhammer
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:34 PM

Bush just signed the bill which gives him the authority, to use force,
if he wants to. Perhaps just some more sabre-rattling? Do martyrs have a sense of fear?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:25 PM

Seriously I doubt if any of those things you mention, Teribus, are serious bottlenecks. If you're running a regular army with state-of-the art equipment you need all that stuff. September 11 just needed a few airline tickets, and some boxcutters, and in this instance a few people with a minimal amount of flight training, which had been supplied by commercial organisations.

Finance? Traditionally that's been largely stuff like bank robberies and protection money. The analogy is more with the Mafia than with a regular army. Self financing.
Training is done as and when it is needed, and can effectively be invisible when you are dealing with maybe half a dozen people at a time. "Safe Havens" might be helpful, but they aren't really needed.

The essential thing is a reservoir of sympathisers in the wider community.

As for Baader-Meinhof and so forth, they weren't organised and sent out by the Russians or whatever, they grew out of a particular post-hippy culture / new left culture in West Europe. Why that culture changed and stopped producing people like the very small number of people who were involved is an interesting question, but not one I'm going to try to give answers to. I don't think it had too much to do with what was happening in Eastern Europe either way. However it seems to me that they never really had a big enough reservoir of sympathisers, largely because their methods alienated the people who might have provided that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:18 PM

Nicole, the voter turn-out was given with exactly 100% as well today. Still impressed?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:12 PM

I am sure they prefer the devil they know to the Great Satan they don't, Don.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 01:08 PM

I offer no opinion on this; it's just a question to speculate about:
Who does the average Iraqi citizen regard as the biggest threat to his or her well-being, Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 12:27 PM

A starving populace makes damn poor resistance fighters. A fact that the administration (and the previous well) know quite well, or we wouldn't be spending millions every year to clothe and feed the Iraqi resistance already. I see that you think it reasonable to let the civilian populace die of starvation, Doug. So much for the Geneva Convention.

The resistance groups that exist in Iraq really aren't strong enough to be our ground cannon-fodder like the Northern Alliance was in Afghanistan. We'll use them, but they won't be significant enough to take the brunt of the casualties, and we'll still need ground troops.

Ever military man I have ever spoken to views urban warfare as a nightmare scenario. Dangerous, deadly, and extremely stressful. Some folks seem to view it as a video game where the almighty American soldier can take out a few hundred bad guys befor having to reload. American soldiers will come home in body bags, and lots of them.

Although the Iraq election was a joke, they still had an incredibly envious voter turnout, especially considering their votes had no weight other than a symbolic one. The percentage means nothing -- the fact that they showed up does. What does that tell you about Saddam's support inside Iraq when it comes to facing America?

Wonder what the voter turnout will be like in America this November?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 11:58 AM

Teribus: I think you are right on.

Bobert, if the population, and particularly the military becomes hungry enough, we won't need to worry too much about Saddam. He will be taken care of.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 10:33 AM

Like I have said in earlier posts, Teribus, there is always the option of starving out Saddam and his folks. Only problem with that is you can bet that the first to starve will be the civilians. Starving a million folks to get to 100,000 is gonna create one heck of a PR headache.

And where is SH gonna hide. Well, he'll be like Waldo in Bagdad. You can bet on that. You seem to loose sight of the fact that he has the guns and with them the power over the folks in Bagdad. Couple that with an American invasion, I think you're gonna find a whole lot more Iraqis that are not going to volunteer to be the mythical poster boy of folks taking to the streets with American flags telling Bush just how happy they are to be attacked.

You brush this a more grave scenerio aside, Teribus, like it can't happen. Well, I'll guarentee you that such a scenerio is the Pentagon's worst fear. Why do you think there has been so much bickering in military over the last month? Why is it that Bush and Rumsfield are distancing themselves from lots of folks in the Defense Department. Why is it that Bush has even talked with Newt Gingrich about stratregies. This ain't Desert Storm. This is more like Viet Nam.

You can ignore these realities as long as you like but, should the huffing and puffing fail to blow SH's house down, remember what I have warned of.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 09:54 AM

Kevin, you say that, "I doubt if safe havens are particularly important for an "organisation" made up of disparate cells." and that Al-Qaeda has, "No need for a central command at all."

What about:

1. Training?

2. Finance?

3. Procurement?

4. Planning?

Doesn't work if everybody just bimbles about doing their own thing, particularly if the world and its dog is aware of the potential threat and is watching for it. For it to be effective it has to be organised.

Out of interest - What were the cultural changes in the west that caused the demise of the groups mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 09:17 AM

Bobert,

I am not, nor have I ever said that it would be a piece of cake. If as you say the RG, SRG and FS hole up in downtown Baghdad and try to lure US forces into an urban scrap, lets just consider what is involved. By the way I have never assumed that the general population are armed - Iraq's views on gun control are a damn sight more responsible than those that exist in America today. But that apart:

1. The elements that can be assumed to be loyal to Saddam Hussein have to be fed and resupplied - By whom?

2. To be effective they have to be able to move about, they can't just sit there.

3. While the general population are not armed, there will be other forces in the city who are armed, e.g. regular army, police.

4. It's not only Saddam who will want to survive, the Ba'ath Party will want to survive and if that means ditching SH they will do so without hesitation.

5. Where is SH going to hide? Where is he going to feel safe among his own population. Remember this is guy who has created his own two layered personal guard just to protect himself from his own people.

Yes there will be casualties but not as many as you seem to imagine. This will be no Stalingrad, because the battle doesn't actually have to be fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 09:01 AM

It's all speculation. "Maybe there won't be a war", or "probably there won't be a war" - whatever happens, there is no way of deciding between those two views. And if there is a war it is likely that it will be claimed on the one hand that this is done on behalf of the UN, and on the other hand that it is done without the backing of the UN.

I doubt if safe havens are particularly important for an "organisation" made up of disparate cells. The analogy has been made with restaurant chains based on franchises. You get the Al Qaida franchise by carrying out a successful bombing or assassination. No need for a central command at all. What matters is having people who are ready to form those cells; and the important thing for ending terrorism is for that supply to dry up.

Anything which tends to increase the number of recruits to terror cells makes future terrorism more likely, regardless of what happens to governments like Saddam's.

I think the political changes in Eastern Europe had very little to do with the end of Baader-Meinhof and so forth. Cultural changes in the West took away whatever base they had in the West, and that was what mattered.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 08:42 AM

Teribus:

I never said that Saddam is going to have universal support from the civilians but be there as supposrters or hostages, it doesn't change the fact that they will be used as shields and pawns. Do you really think they are armed. You must have them confused with my neighborhood where everyone has a gun. No, quite the opposite. The folks with the guns will be the RG amd SRG, not the mabn on the street that you think is going to rise up against Saddam like the Northern Alliance did in Afganistan. Like I say, you are discounting the real risks here and need to revisit your position...

If Saddam is pushed into a corner he wil do anything to survive and if it means hiding in tghe midddle of Bagdad, than so be it and if his men think that either the Americans are going to kill them or after the war, the Kurds, then yopu don't think they'll fight? You had better pray that Bush's huffin and puffin works because your take on Bagdad being a piece of cake is, in my opinion, ill thought out.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 08:26 AM

Kevin,

I think that America will go the UNSC and a compromise solution on a new resolution will be negotiated. This will put the weapons inspection teams back into Iraq under terms that will allow them to do their job. In this case I do not believe there will be a war.

Should the work of the inspection teams suffer interference, any action taken will be taken under the auspices of the United Nations, not by America acting unilaterally. Practically all the states that America needs for supporting a "go it alone" approach have been quite clear that they would only assist if backing from the UN exists. I have always contended that without that support any military intervention in Iraq would be extremely difficult if not impossible.

What ever happens in Iraq, it will only affect Al-Qaeda to the extent that one potential place of refuge will be denied them. I also believe that as a direct result of the bombing in Bali that another area potentially viewed as a safe haven is being closed down. They may continue to operate but at a very reduced level. In the 1970's extreme left wing factions such as Bader-Meinhoff, the Red Army Faction and November 17th were successfully countered in Europe. They totally collapsed with the disintegration of the former USSR. Al-Qaeda will suffer the same fate.

Should military intervention be necessary a great deal of thought must be put into what happens in Iraq. One suggestion has been a UN mandated administration. A phrase used to describe assistance to Afghanistan post-Taliban, was "hearts and minds", if properly conducted this is very effective but it takes a lot of time, money and effort. Unfortunately the Americans have never been very good at it because they have never fully understood it. For a UN administered Iraq to work, the UN must draw on moderate muslim member states to front the effort. The western democracies would have to supply financial and technical aid to rebuild the country - the same is true for Afghanistan, its early days there yet, but, if reports are true, progress is being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 07:36 AM

Whether they like Saddam or loathe Saddam won't make too much difference when the bombs and the missiles are coming in, especially given the preference shown in recent wars for the bombers to stay at very high altitudes.

I take it your view, Teribus, is that there probably won't be a war, but if there is one, it won't be as hard for the USA (and anyone allies) to win as some people think.

My view is that it is still possible there may not be a war, but that if it comes it will involve a lot more dead on both sides than Afghanistan did, and that the outcome is likely to be a military victory in Iraq, but with consequences elsewhere (and very likely inside Iraq as well), which will be very helpful to "Al Qaida". (And I put "Al Qaida" in quotes because I doubt very much if there is what is really involved is a centralised organisation with a normal command structure.)

In Afghanistan things were made a lot easier by the existence of the Northern Alliance in the field already, who did pretty well all the actual ground fighting. One thing to keep in mind is that among the most enthusiastic opponents of Saddam will be those who want an "Islamic" republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 06:18 AM

Bobert you are missing the point in my analogy - complete role reversal:

The magnificent seven = The loyal RG, SRG & FS troops you say will have the backing of the Iraq people in your urban warfare scenario. What I am saying is that they won't. It was fairly clearly demonstrated in Kabul how highly regarded the Taliban were - that was another prediction where the sceptics believed that troops would get bogged down in bitter urban fighting - it didn't happen there it won't happen in Baghdad. My analogy to a well known movie does mean that I would take anything produced by Hollywood to reflect what would happen in real life. I would rather draw on recent events and personal experience from my time in the forces.

Amos,

I think that all the American administration has done is to make clear that they have all options open. In the end it will come down to a compromise solution in the Security Council and your President has ensured that America goes into those discussions with some means by which that compromise can be reached.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Oct 02 - 04:36 AM

We now get the news that the vote for Hussein was 100%, not just close to but perfect with 100% (perfect) voting.

Issat Ibrahim, vice-chairman of the revolutionary command at a press conference: "This is an outstanding manifestation of democracy, superior to all other forms of democracy".

A big congratulation from

Wolfgang

for being able to keep a straight face while saying this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 11:06 PM

But Don! You are not aware that the English word for raisins in Arabic is virgins? Plump, juicy raisins, I think.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 09:46 PM

I have no idea if this is true or not, but someone was telling me that the "seventy-one virgins" thing is actually a mistranslation from earlier text. The passage, my informant claims, deals with a long list of goodies offered in Paradise, and that specific section is really talking about an unlimited supply of sweet raisins!

"I killed a bunch of people and blew my own ass off for THESE!!????"

Life can be a bitch sometimes. I guess death ain't much better.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 09:32 PM

LOL! Nice humour there, guys...both of you. I don't think the Muslim faith has devoted a whole lot of time in promising afterlife benefits to females, Doug, but I may be wrong. Seems to me that if you look into the traditional teachings of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (three branches of the same sour lemon tree) that you will find not much said on behalf of women most of the time (although Jesus was an exception in that regard, and he drew some heavy criticism for it from various of his contemporaries).

Now who the hell would want 71 virgins anyway? I certainly wouldn't. Sounds more like purgatory than paradise to me... Only a society where men and women are separated from each other in a very unnatural fashion could dream up such a silly notion, as far as I'm concerned.

And I would do my best to avoid that particular tooth fairy, Amos...he's got very sharp teeth.

Y'know, with this new thread-dividing software the old "Killing the Thread" one would be quite manageable...remember it?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 08:40 PM

I don't think male virgins are as motivating to girls as vice-versa, Doug. Well, maybe to Republican girls, I guess....:>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 07:24 PM

"Secure them a place in heaven," AND 71 VIRGINS, L.H.! Don't forget the virgins! I kind of wonder what they promise the girls. Hmmm I guess there COULD be 71 male virgins too though. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 07:03 PM

I've met the tooth fairy at the Pentagon, LH. He is very concerned to know how you found out, and wonders what it would take to keep his secret safe with you.,..


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 06:30 PM

That's a safe bet, Doug, but so what? Dictators often hold bogus elections...some with the approval of the USA and some without. The fact that they are in any case dictators is not the part that truly concerns the American government, but rather how well and how willingly they cooperate with America's strategic and financial agendas.

It's exactly like the days of the big city gangster mobs out there. He who cooperates is a friend of the Boss, he who doesn't is a target. Don't forget that the Boss also does nice things now and then, like providing Christmas turkeys for poor widows or something like that, but if you ain't got the Boss on your side you can figure to be pushin' up daises or wearin' cement overshoes in pretty short order...

None of this brouhaha has anything whatsoever to do with "democracy" or freedom or the pretense of either one. It has to do with realpolitik...which is money, resources, voter support, maintaining a propaganda image, markets, and guns. The other stuff is window dressing for the poor saps who still believe there's a Santa Claus in Washington and a tooth fairy at the Pentagon...or the other poor saps who believe that blowing themselves up and becoming "martyrs" will secure them a place in heaven. Equally out of touch in either case, I'd say.

The people I feel much in common with are the ordinary folks on both sides who want nothing else but to live a quiet, peaceful, and productive life, and not hurt people who happen to be different in some way from themselves. I believe those people constitute the majority of humanity, but they have precious few representatives speaking out for them in the halls of power.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 05:44 PM

Bobert: I hope you are sitting by your TV tonight so you can see how the Iraqi election comes out. I'm biting my nails with suspense. I think old Saddam will pull it off though, don't you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 03:21 PM

Teribus:

So let me get this right. You're gonna send in Yul Bryner and the other six of the "Magnificent Seven". Great plan, Pal. Can I choose the other six?

I don't think you have thought through your urban warfare scenerio too well. Like, who do you think are gonna have all the rifles and grenades? The civilians? Right. Hahahah... No, of course they are not. And just how do you think the "Magnificent Seven" are gonna:

a.) Get close enough to the civilians in the apartment buildings with out getting seriously shot up, and

b.) in doing so also shoot up a bunch of civilians accidently trying to get close enough to the apartment building to...

c.) knock on the door and ask the civilians to turn over the bad guys?

I would suggets that you revisit the last 15 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" and get back to me with a revised plan...

And as fir Bush, hey, look until millions of folks satrted writing and emailing their Congressmen, Bush had all but given the orders. Then after the American people and the rest of world spoke up, he had to backtrack, which to him just meant a longer check-list of things to do before he could have *his* war and now he's kinda busy with the checklist. But make no bones about it, if this war gets stopped it will because of the massave resistence movement here and abroad that get's in Junior's way...

And you can take that to the bank.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 02:27 PM

Teribus:

Do you think it is unreasonable to interpret Bush's intention as going to war against Saddam? I mean considering his motivating for carte blanche permission to unleash the military at will, his insistence on doing so either with or without the UN, and his characterization of Saddam as not only "evil" but ALSO "the man who tried to kill my Dad...."? Seems to me Bush's six-shooter is already clearing leather.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 02:07 PM

You have to admit, Bobert, Saddam ran a good race! Otherwise that other guy ...what's his name ...might have won.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 12:23 PM

Maybe he won't go to war. I don'think that man Bush is that good an actor, but after all, it's what he's always done for a living, so maybe he is pretty good at it after all, and it's all a bluff.

Once again I post tha quote from Putin, who isn't my favourite politician, but what he says here makes a lot more sense than all that talk about "thwareting" inspections:

"There may be a difference of perspective about weapons of mass destruction, there is one certain way to find out and that is to let the inspectors back in to do their job."

I'm hoping the bombs in Bali might have woken up enough people to the real priorities to make a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 09:12 AM

Bobert,

I appreciate it isn't rocket science and you are perfectly correct in saying that "You really don't need much to conduct effective urban warfare". Yes you need rifles, a few hand-grenades, possibly some car bombs, but more important than any of these, you need to have the whole-hearted support of the civilian population.

Oh! you reckon that they can be used as shields. Right then Bobert, I've got a better analogy for you, imagine a re-shoot of "The Magnificent Seven", except in this version you have Yul Bryner and the rest of the boys holed up in the Mexican village but when the "bad guys" come into town, instead of helping Yul and the boys, the villagers are telling the opposition where Yul and the boys are posted and how to get round them. Bit of a difference, Hmmmmmmmm?

As far as I know from this side of the Atlantic at present:

1. There is no war.

2. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government have not been bombarded with ultimatims, unreasonable or otherwise.

3. Diplomatic efforts on the parts of all involved are still in progress.

Sorry, I forgot - "HE'S A-GOIN' TO DO IT!!, HE'S A-GOIN' TO DO IT!!, HE'S A-GOIN TO DO IT REGARDLESS!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bagpuss
Date: 15 Oct 02 - 09:07 AM

What if...

We *liberate* Iraq, install democracy and then they vote for Sadaam Hussain...