BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:31 AM

I with you there one hundred percent, Mark. I hope some day JtS and I will have an opportunity to do some singing and laughing (and maybe some accordion playing) with you in person.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 11:45 PM

I'm glad this has provoked some interesting discussion, even if most people are still avoiding the main topic. But maybe I was too subtle.
Anyway, I think it's my turn to be tired of the whole topic. Nobody is going to change anybody's mind, least of all the global corporate executives, chief spies, and all the rest of the clique who really call the shots. It's pretty clear to me that some very powerful people are very determined to start a major war because they think they will end up "winning." The crazies have taken over, folks, and they don't give a shit about you and me. But I haven't forgotten how to sing, and laugh, and love, and they're not going to make me stop.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:54 PM

Pretty Pollyanna-ish attitude, considering the track record of these two men.

Remember Sabra and Shatila were brought to you by none other than...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:50 PM

I got the point. I just suspect and hope that this time there won't be that kind of excuse provided.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:44 PM

If it wasn't nukes that North Korea had Bushie's nuts in the cracker with, I'd be amused by the game. Bushie painted himself into a cowboy corner conundrum with the axis of evil bullshit and the "no negotiations" stance with North Korea.

North Korea decides to threaten to take out Tokyo Sunday week, and you'll see the Texas cowboy singing a very different tune. North Korea is engaging in nuclear extortion because they can. Which means we HAVE to deal with them. They only need to use one nuke in a place like Tokyo to get the world's attention.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:39 PM

Yo T:

Keep in mind that Pakistan has played a larger and more recent role in assiting NK with their nuclear program. This is no secret. I believe you're given too much credit to the Russians here.

But, either way, yes, NK is a terribly impoverished country. That said, the "deal" is there to be made. No, I'm not going to say it's a snap but very doable and needs to be done very, very soon.

Word on the street is that in exchange for a "Non Aggression Statement of Pact" (even short of a treaty) that NK would be willing to reverse it's plutonium production and shut down it's reactor, allow inspectors back in and be happy. Hey, that's pretty cheap.

But it's going to take more initiative than sending GS-12's. I would think Bush could send someone with the sature of Colin Powell and expect to have d eal on the table within a week or two.The problem is that the longer the US puts it off, thinking it will go away, the more difficult it will be to accomplish a settlement.

Again, it's time for a serious Peace Summit just to get some folks to stand down, take a deep breath and re-evaluate the very dangerous situaution that the Bush's and bin Laden's of the world have created.

Not now? When?

Peace.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:18 PM

McGrath, you missed my point entirely. Sharon and Netanyahu are the most powerful hawks the state of Israel has ever had. Nothing has to be "effective" for them to go over the top with their retaliation and vengeance mindset.

Just ask the Palestinian people.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:13 PM

At a time of the last Gulf War, when the weapons of all sorts at Saddam' disposal were vastly greater than whatever he might still have, his assaults on Israel were not too effective.

If he does have anything significant left, it's a lot more likely he's going to use it against the invaders.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 07:55 PM

Teribus, your argument falls flat for one very good reason. Iraq doesn't have nukes. North Korea has nukes. North Korea can not only nuke South Korea, it can nuke Japan, and a whole lot of other targets that would be devastating to the West, if it chose to do so, even with only two nukes.

Ignore North Korea for six to twelve months while we oust Saddam, and North Korea has half a dozen nukes and even more starving people, and no incentive to come back onto the reservation.

Now, I think that if Saddam remains in power while the US attacks Iraq it is an absolute given that we will "find" Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We will find them being used on our own forces, just as they were during the Iran/Iraq war. And we will most certainly see them used against Israeli cities.

And then, what happens of Sharon and Netanyahu decide to retaliate with their nukes? How long until Pakistan weighs in with their nukes to defend the Arab world against US, British, and Israeli attacks?

And why, in god's name, if we are talking about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, does this scenario not make it into the papers?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 01:45 PM

well, I just watched this documentary that says The Trilateral Commission, led by the Bilderberg group, with many members of Skull & Bones (Bush's seceret society) makes all the decisions anyway....so why are we debating? They want war, so war it is!... *sly grin*

Perhaps N. Korea will see and be afraid!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 01:32 PM

The main source of resources for Hamas is the Israeli government. That's because their most important resource is desperate Palestinians.

In the same way, the main source of political power for the present Israeli gvernment is Hamas and other terrorist groups. That's because the main source of politcal power is desperate Israelis.

Outsiders who stoke the fire, whether in Washington or Baghdad, are far less important.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 01:19 PM

Red Cross setting UP shelters kind of nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 01:17 PM

...as Canada does... ? Hey, we dragged you into both WW's. How's the warm weather treatin' ya ? Lucky dog !!! We've had power outages from rain, freezing rain, snow... it's been a real nasty week... Red Cross setting shelters kind of nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: Dani
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 01:11 PM

As Senator Aiken of Vermont once said about Viet Nam, Let's just tell them we won, and go home. What a paradise this country could be if we would just mind our own business, as Canada does, and stay home. There are battles to fight right here; poverty, ignorance, racism, pollution. We created Saddam H. we also created the Shar of Iran, Samosa etc. will we ever learn? (Kendall on Dani's computer)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 12:53 PM

That's another whole subject for discussion, Teribus, and I can tell already that you and I are far from being in agreement about how events have been shaped in the region. I'm not going to get into it with you on this thread, but you can find out what I think about that if you spend some time exploring my posting history, starting around March of last year.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 11:51 AM

CarolC:

"The government of Israel is one of the staunchest supporters of a US attack against Iraq."

I wonder why? Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that Saddam is Hamas's principal backer? Without Iraq funding that particular group would find it very difficult to function.

Or could it have something to do with the political reality that had planned Palestinian elections been held Hamas would have swept Arafat's PLO into political obscurity. The significant change in that happening would have been that while the PLO have come round to accepting the right of the state of Israel to exist as a start point for negotiation, Hamas refuse point blank to recognise Israel in any way shape or form - which kind of makes any meaningful dialogue difficult if not impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 11:45 AM

(wrong in *this* case)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 11:32 AM

Mark, I would be agreeing with you right now if it weren't for something I heard Benjamin Netanyahu say about a year ago. He was telling the American people, on American TV, that we should attack Saddam and remove him from power. When the interviewer protested that we shouldn't wage a first strike war, Mr. Netanyahu said something along the lines of this: "Just do it! You don't need anyone's permission, you just do it!

The government of Israel is one of the staunchest supporters of a US attack against Iraq.

I have no idea what the people who live in Israel think about what their government is advocating, but I would love to hear that they are doing their best to convince their government that it is wrong in case.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 10:20 AM

Mark,

Some comments on your post initiating this thread:

Superficially, the two situations have a number of similarities, pointed out by yourself above. There are, however, a great number of highly significant differences that should be recognised and taken into account. These differences preclude direct comparison.

1. History and Context.
In 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea. The first real test for the, then infant, United Nations. A United Nations force that was predominantly American was sent to the area to expell North Korean forces from South Korea. There was no peace treaty signed, merely an agreed truce, under the terms of which North and South Korea have, by and large, managed to co-exist peacefully. When the terms of this truce were drawn up, the prospects of North Korea acquiring WMD were not taken into account, such was the thinking and realities in the early 1950's.

In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait. A United Nations backed coalition was sent to the area tasked with two objectives, the first to ensure the security of the sovereign state of Saudi Arabia, and, secondly to expell the Iraqi Army from Kuwait. The two UN operations "Desert Shield" and "Desert Storm" accomplished both missions. Hostilities were brought to a halt with the signing of a cease fire agreement - not a peace treaty. Under the terms of this cease fire agreement, backed up by UNSC Resolutions, the Iraqi Government agreed to disarm and forgo the development,production and use of WMD. This was specifically introduced in this case because Iraq had a proven capability in this field and had previously used, and threatened the use of, such weapons.

2. The Intervening Periods
North Korea has, apart from minor incidents, co-existed with its neighbours and upheld the truce that ended hostilities. It is an extremely poor country with few natural resources. A communist country modelled on Stalinist lines its ties with Soviet Russia have always been stronger than its ties to Maoist Communist China. North Korea's acquisition of nuclear technology, from Soviet Russia, although alarming to some could be rationally explained. Subsequent to the ending of hostilities to maintain a military balance North Korea was supplied with missiles and missile technology by Soviet Russia. As these events unfolded North Korea signed international agreements that provided some degree of comfort and security amongst the international community.

On cessation of hostilities between UN coalition forces and Iraq, in accordance with UNSC Resolutions, weapons inspection teams from the UN agencies UNSCOM and the IAEA entered Iraq to supervise and verify Iraq's compliance with the UN resolutions Baghdad had agreed to. Within a very short period it became obvious that Iraq was not co-operating with those inspection teams. To ensure compliance the UN introduced sanctions, these measures were ineffective and the UNSCOM and IAEA teams were withdrawn from Iraq, prior to commencement of "Desert Fox" which was equally ineffective. Immediately after their departure from Iraq, both UNSCOM and the IAEA reported the current known status of the situation inside Iraq with regard to WMD programmes and stocks of WMD themselves to the UNSC. The content and points raised in this report still remain outstanding issues.

3. Relevant Events Elswhere
The collapse of Soviet Russia had an extremely negative effect on North Korea - its main support and mentor literally disappeared.

The terrorist attacks on WTC 9th September, 2001 showed to the American people and it's government that they were now in the front line and extremely vulnerable to attack.

4. Subsequent Actions
North Korea after having signed agreements to halt it nuclear programme in exchange for foreign aid covertly restarts its programme. The old North Korean Reactors are not very efficient at producing energy but can be used as "fast breeders" to produce enriched weapons grade plutonium. America arrives at a deal with North Korea to supply heating oil and build two light water cooled reactors to provide electrical power in the long term. US intelligence warns that the North Koreans have not stopped their nuclear programme as agreed.

After the attack of 9.11.01, the American Administration has to evaluate the threat of any future attack. This takes the form of:

a) Establishing who will attack;
b) In what form will that attack present itself, looking at worst case;
c) What will be needed to allow that attack to take place
d) Identify possible sources of support for such an attack in terms of finance, technology, material and neutralise them.

Under this process the US identifies four regimes considered to be willing partners - Taliban in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Having assisted the Northern Alliance in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, thereby robbing Al-Qaeda of a secure base, the US then concentrates on Iraq's unwillingness to disarm in accordance with agreements and UNSC Resolutions. The US seeing in this unwillingness the threat that exists if weapons programmes proceed unchecked and support is given to terrorist groups in terms of material, technology and training. At the same time the US confronts North Korea with regard to its nuclear programme. North Korea admits to running this programme and to the existence of its own nuclear weapons. North Korea withdraws from the nuclear arms proliferation treaty. North Korea could, with justification, now be viewed not only as an exporter of missiles and missile technology, but of nuclear weapons themselves.

5. Options
US goes to the United Nations and voices its fears with regard to Iraq. Washington tells the UN that unless it (the UN) acts to enforce UNSC resolutions, the US will act unilaterally. UNSC passes UNSC Resolution 1441 and weapons inspection resumes with serious consequences for Iraq if it now fails to comply. US builds up forces in the area to maintain pressure on Saddam Hussein. Saddam can either comply in full or expect to be attacked, the choice is basically his. As his programmes and capability stand at present, the results of such an action can be contained. That will not be the case in the future if Saddam Hussein's ambitions were allowed to go unchecked.

Post WTC attack, North Korea watches the situation developing and monitors US military movements. North Korea threatens its own pre-emptive strike if threatened, and all out war if attacked. Potentially this is a much more dangerous situation, North Korea does not want to attack anybody and its past history supports that contention. Should North Korea act on statements it has made it knows for certain that it faces certain destruction, that is not what the regime in power there wants. What it hopes to do is to blackmail its neighbours and the US into supplying aid to bolster the regime and keep it in power, therefore, it becomes obvious that negotiation will solve this - North Korea has no geo-political agenda and its leaders want to stay in power.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: gnu
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 09:36 AM

Scud : to move quickly; wispy clouds driven by the wind; a sudden rain; etc.

Subject: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:38 AM

It is only folklore that gives the origin of the "Scud" missile's name as being from the Falklands conflict:

Two Liverpool sailors looking up at a passing missile, one says
"S'good that isn't it?"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:27 AM

Good Morning, Mark. The ol' Wes Ginny hillybilly and his trusty slide rules have been at these questions for several weeks now and no matter how we work out the equation the final answer is that Bush is friggin' nuts.

Logic would have it that it's all about missle range. The SCUD can't hit too manu of our boys but now North Korea's missles and a possible nuclear war head can. Where the logic parts contiunes to fall apart is where Bush (and this is the "friggin' nuts" part of the equation)and sticks enough of our boys within range of the SCUD. Hmmmmm?

Like I say, the boy is "friggin' nuts".

End of non-explanation.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 07:39 AM

And of course it would have an Arabic majority, if they hadn't been ethnically cleansed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 07:37 AM

Israel was hardly the only target, Geographer. My brother, who was teaching English in Saudi Arabia at the time, had a SCUD land in HIS neighborhood.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: GUEST,Geographer
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:48 AM

>>And while you're at it, reassure the people who had Iraqi SCUD >>missiles land in their neighborhoods in 1991.

Er, that would be Israel, that well-known "Islamic country". :)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:39 AM

Well, if you want an oppressive regime with an Evil Dictator and nukes into the bargain, there's China, of course. Hang about -- aren't they on the UN Security Council?

Steve

Subject: BS: 'Why Didn't I See This Before?' Dept.
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:25 AM

WARNING: This thread contains references to war, Iraq, and North Korea. Even though it may possibly have some new ideas, those who are not interested in these discussions should leave immediately. You have been warned.

I just want to make sure I have this right:

1. The U.S. military is poised to attack Iraq because it is part of the Axis of Evil, has a Ruthless Dictator, and possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction.

2. North Korea is part of the Axis of Evil, has a Ruthless Dictator, and possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction.

BUT...

3. The U.S. military is not planning on attacking North Korea, because to do so might cause said Ruthless Dictator, being Ruthless, Armed, and Suddenly Under Attack, to unleash his forces, including, perhaps, said Weapons of Mass Destruction, on his neighbor and our friend, South Korea.

4. The U.S. military is, however not worried that attacking Iraq will cause Iraq's Ruthless Dictator similarly to become Ruthless, Armed, and Suddenly Under Attack. Why? Because even if Iraq decided to strike back, in a moment of panic or arrogance or stupidity, its Weapons of Mass Destruction have a very short range, and all of its neighbors are Islamic countries, which it would not dream of attacking with its SCUD missiles and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

5. Oh, yes, well, of course, there's...uh... Oh. Right. I get it. That would be awful, wouldn't it? But then again, there are some who probably wouldn't mind at all.

Somebody please prove to me that I'm wrong. And while you're at it, reassure the people who had Iraqi SCUD missiles land in their neighborhoods in 1991.

Aloha,
Mark

(Who is also remembering, as we send bombers to rattle Pyongyang's cage just a little bit more, that the last time an Asian nation attacked the United States, the bombs fell about 12 miles from where I'm sitting right now.)