Re: BRe: Nice war - here's the bill

[Alan Minyard]

On 10 Sep 2003 23:51:21 -0700, (charles liu)
wrote:

>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
>> In message >, Stephen Harding
>> > writes
>> >"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>> >> And lost most of their stockpiles after '91, and had their production
>> >> limited by UN surveillance and then kicked hard by Desert Fox in 1998.
>> >
>> >Still lots of unaccounted WMD material unanswered for.
>>
>> Not a single weapon found. Not a radioactive sausage.
>
>Both Blix and Ritter had attributed the unaccounted chem/bio material
>to accounting error (to please Saddam, production numbers were
>exaggerated) and Iraq did destroy it all 10 years ago.
>
>And the beauty is Iraqis have to pay for the damage themselves
>(reconstruction cost is comming out of their foo-for-oil program and
>sale of their national oil reserve into the pockets of Halliburton and
>Chevron).
>
>The only parallel I can see is what the colonialists did to China 200
>years ago - beat them up, then graft their wealth via war restitution.

Ritter is an acknowledged liar. His credibility is zero.

The "food for oil" program is dead and buried

Iraqi oil is NOT being used to "pay" for anything related to the war
and/or US and UK presence in the country. Nor is any of it going to
any US company.

Get a clue.

Al Minyard

[Stephen Harding]

Peter Kemp wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:35:34 GMT, Stephen Harding
> > wrote:
>
> >"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> >>
> >> In message >, Stephen Harding
> >> > writes
> >> >"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> >> He can run and hide, being animate. Weapons can't, being dead metal.
> >
> >No, but people can't be stashed underground for years on end, or cut up into
> >components and reassembled later either.
>
> Yet all these "thousands of tons" (SecState Powell's words to the UN)
> of WMD are gone without a trace of digging found, despite having been
> a real threat (remember the 45 minutes to deployment?) right up until
> the war ended?

I think the 45 minute thing was a Brit claim, no?

No matter really, since the US seemed to accept the claim. Could be honest
misinterpretation of situation rather than Machiavellian plot.

I have no doubt there were sources that said such things. This particular
claim was clearly wrong. I still believe WMD will show up.

> >> >> How often, and with what result?
> >> >
> >> >As I understand it, terrorist types were only lightly tolerated by Saddam's
> >> >Iraq. Ansar al-Islam in the north were Sunnis who liked to blow up Shiite
> >> >Kurds, so were OK. Those wanting to go farther afield for American prey
> >> >were probably persona non grata...at the time.
> >>
> >> So why invade Iraq as a "terrorist sponsor", then?
> >
> >To be rid of Saddam, a looming threat IMHO.
>
> Why was he suddenly looming? What made him so dangerous in 2003 that
> wasn't there in 2001/2000/1999/1998/1997/1996? Nasty man, no doubt,
> but looming threat?

Because he was about to be freed of UN restriction.

> >> From a cold logical perspective, Saddam was locked in his box with
> >> little capability to do more than rattle the lid when US and allied
> >> aircraft flew over air-defence sites.
> >
> >Hardly. The box was about to open. French/Germans/Russians have been
> >chaffing at the bit to end sanctions. Not until the US/UK were "very serious"
> >about invasion did continued sanctions suddenly seem a good idea.
>
> Err, sanctions can't be lifted without the UNSC agreeing, and look who
> has veto rights? That's right, the US and UK. Of course you could try
> to overrule the UNSC by getting a 2/3 majority in the General
> Assembly, but that hasn't been done since the Korean war!

There's been plenty of trading with Iraq on the side, irrespective of any
UN resolutions. Iraq had been selling plenty of oil out from under UN
"Food for Peace" oversight.

The resolution itself doesn't create a favorable outcome in dealing with
Saddam as far as US interests go. The *US* (UK too I think) was largely
flying no-fly patrols. Easy for France to say "continue doing that" for
another 10 years while we quietly do business and work for lifting of
sanctions.

> >Just how long are we supposed to enforce the no fly zones, with increasing
> >AA activity towards overflights?
>
> At the very least until Afghanistan is stable, and the WOT is rather
> further along. Instead of which the US is hamstrung, being
> realistically unable to deploy any more troops anywhere.

The no-fly zone was a political ham-stringing waiting to happen! The fact
that no planes were lost...even to mechanical failures, over the past 12
years I find somewhat astonishingly lucky. Add to it the increase in SAM
firings and this is simply not tenable.

You are advocating a policy of allowing US pilots to provide Iraqi AAA units
target practice for absolutely no political gain. Only loss is possible
over the long run.

> >> He wasn't going to take the steps to get the sanctions lifted - he was
> >> getting hugely rich and his position secured by them so they probably
> >> suited him very nicely.
> >
> >Doubt it. He wanted control of his country back! That means no "no fly" zones.
> >That means crushing the semi-autonomous Kurds (who've been doing quite well on
> >their own no thanks to Saddam).
>
> On the contrary, the Kurds have been doing well *because* of Saddam.
> Most of the Kurdish revenue was from the oil being smuggled over the
> border into Turkey, through the Kurdish areas.

Economically oil helps. But oil doesn't create democratic institutions, and
the Kurds actually have a reasonably well functioning democracy complete with
talk shows with broad political/economic opinion. No help from Saddam was necessary!

> >> Why? Is his army going to be better trained and re-equipped by then? Are
> >> his people going to love him any more?
> >
> >His army will have WMD for all to see (if he doesn't already have them...for all
> >not to see).
>
> But, I thought the army already had WMD, and never got rid of it all
> post 1991? Or so Blair and Bush told me. So that one's a fallacious
> argument.

Had them or not, he'd have them by 2010 if sanctions were lifted!

> >UNSCR isn't binding and vital. Never have been. They are an annoyance and
> >hindrance, about to be removed by friends in the SC. They're useful tools to
> >whomever gets one passed.
> >
> >If you're Arab, they're great when the say Israel needs to withdraw from whatever
> >town, or that Zionism = Racism.
>
> Well, no. Because someone has vetoed almost every single resolution
> critical of Israel for decades - the US.

Sort of like France with the US over Iraq, right?

If it weren't for US vetos, the UN would probably have voted a resolution
calling for the "disbandment" of the Israeli state!

> > Their irrelevant if they address Syrian occupation
> >of Lebanon (does such a resolution even exist?).
>
> Not to my knowledge, in which case yes, a non-existent resolution is
> irrelevant.

That's the problem. Too many non-existent (and therefor irrelevant) UNSC
resolutions against Palestinian terror or Arab occupations and political
infringements on citizens. How can one think the UN is balanced, and therefor
credible, in such a conflict?

If one looks at the number of UNSCRs against Israel, versus the numbers
against Arabs of all persuasion, you'd have to conclude it's a one-way violence
in the Holy Land. It most certainly is NOT!

> >> Hence the Security Council.
> >
> >And deadlock.
>
> Quite. Noting of course that the only reason there is deadlock is due
> to the existence of the veto. But I don't see any of the big 5
> volunteering to give it up any time soon.

The veto should be eliminated, and in its place, some sort of mechanism for
forcing compromise. Something like, but not necessarily identical, to the
US House/Senate (British Lords/Commons???) with rules that force compromise
to get things done.

But of course, that implies giving up national sovereignty, which I think
nations in addition to the US, would be loath to do.

> >> >*Real* leadership isn't sitting back to let a majority decide how you should
> >> >act. Valid national interests can't be overruled by a majority that does not
> >> >share those interests, nor will pay a consequence if dangers or interests are
> >> >not engaged.
> >>
> >> *Real* leadership also involves concepts like "finish what you started"
> >> and "you hooked him, you land him".
> >
> >Angling expedition currently underway.
>
> True, but while the fish is still in the water you're asking the rest
> of the world to get the nets so your fishermen can go home.

I haven't heard that! Quite the contrary. I think the US is willing (somewhat
reluctantly of course) to be in Iraq for several more years. That should have
been the plan all along.

> >> NK and Iran are much nearer WME than Iraq, and Syria is widely alleged
> >> to have chemical warheads on over a hundred Scud copies. Sounds like a
> >> threat to me - when do we go in?
> >
> >Syria might very well be a viable target. I think one war at a time is a
> >good rule though, especially when it is not yet clear if the outcome will be
> >favorable.
>
> Well the US is currently on 2 wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), and
> posturing mightily on the Korean peninsular.

Which seems to have paid off. This administration wasn't panicked into
appeasement mode by the whacky NKs. They threw the course rhetoric right back
at them. I think we'll get something accomplished now that China finally sees
NK as a problem in their national interest as well!

> As always, my position on Iraq, is not "why invade", but "why invade
> now, when we're still busy with AQ?"

I just think the cost of invasion was going to be greater later than now.
But I guess we'll never know. It's certainly going to cost a bundle though.


SMH

[David Henderson]

In article >, Stephen Harding wrote:
>> >If you're Arab, they're great when the say Israel needs to withdraw from whatever
>> >town, or that Zionism = Racism.
>> Well, no. Because someone has vetoed almost every single resolution
>> critical of Israel for decades - the US.
> Sort of like France with the US over Iraq, right?
> If it weren't for US vetos, the UN would probably have voted a resolution
> calling for the "disbandment" of the Israeli state!

Like you wanted them to do for Iraq?

Pot. Kettle. You do the introductions.


--
I give confidential press briefings.
You leak.
He's been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets act.
-- Irregular verbs, Yes Prime Minister.

[Stephen Harding]

David Henderson wrote:
>
> In article >, Stephen Harding wrote:
> >> >If you're Arab, they're great when the say Israel needs to withdraw from whatever
> >> >town, or that Zionism = Racism.
> >> Well, no. Because someone has vetoed almost every single resolution
> >> critical of Israel for decades - the US.
> > Sort of like France with the US over Iraq, right?
> > If it weren't for US vetos, the UN would probably have voted a resolution
> > calling for the "disbandment" of the Israeli state!
>
> Like you wanted them to do for Iraq?
>
> Pot. Kettle. You do the introductions.

Not at all.

The UN is tool useful to everyone at varying times, and a PITA at others.

Too many people ascribe high democratic ideals to UN resolutions. The UN
is not democratic, and its resolutions carry no weight of rule of law.

They should be seen as nothing more than they really are.


SMH

[Jeffrey Smidt]

David Henderson > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Stephen Harding wrote:
> >> >If you're Arab, they're great when the say Israel needs to withdraw from whatever
> >> >town, or that Zionism = Racism.
> >> Well, no. Because someone has vetoed almost every single resolution
> >> critical of Israel for decades - the US.
> > Sort of like France with the US over Iraq, right?
> > If it weren't for US vetos, the UN would probably have voted a resolution
> > calling for the "disbandment" of the Israeli state!
>
> Like you wanted them to do for Iraq?
>
> Pot. Kettle. You do the introductions.

To: Mr Pot
Re: Iraq

US never has wanted to disband Iraq. We stopped in 1991 to prevent
the collapse of Iraq due to fragmentation. We then and now recognised
the Iraqi state and people right to self determination. We objected
to the Regime in charge and after 13 years of resistence, offense and
obfuscation, decided to take action. The US doesnt need another
desert, we got Texas.

Cordially
Mr Kettle

[B2431]

>US never has wanted to disband Iraq. We stopped in 1991 to prevent
>the collapse of Iraq due to fragmentation.
>desert, we got Texas.

<snip>

>Cordially
>Mr Kettle
>
Actually we stopped because the coalition would have fragmented had we gone
further into Iraq. The Syrians, Saudis etc would have changed sides. Besides
the Coalition was only assembled and mandated by the UN to eject the Iraqis
from Kuwait.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Kemp]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:09:14 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>Peter Kemp wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:35:34 GMT, Stephen Harding
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >To be rid of Saddam, a looming threat IMHO.
>>
>> Why was he suddenly looming? What made him so dangerous in 2003 that
>> wasn't there in 2001/2000/1999/1998/1997/1996? Nasty man, no doubt,
>> but looming threat?
>
>Because he was about to be freed of UN restriction.

No, he wasn't. The US had explicitly said (and the UK too IIRC) that
they would veto any attempt to lift sanctions until Iraq was given a
clean bill of health by UNMOVIC.

>> >Hardly. The box was about to open. French/Germans/Russians have been
>> >chaffing at the bit to end sanctions. Not until the US/UK were "very serious"
>> >about invasion did continued sanctions suddenly seem a good idea.
>>
>> Err, sanctions can't be lifted without the UNSC agreeing, and look who
>> has veto rights? That's right, the US and UK. Of course you could try
>> to overrule the UNSC by getting a 2/3 majority in the General
>> Assembly, but that hasn't been done since the Korean war!
>
>There's been plenty of trading with Iraq on the side, irrespective of any
>UN resolutions. Iraq had been selling plenty of oil out from under UN
>"Food for Peace" oversight.

In breach of sanctions. Quite a lot of it as I've said being oil
through the Turkish border. Yet despite the knowledge of this no
attempt was made by the UN (or suggested by the US) to halt this flow.
Down in the gulf was another matter, and the maritime interdiction was
fairly successful.

>The resolution itself doesn't create a favorable outcome in dealing with
>Saddam as far as US interests go. The *US* (UK too I think) was largely
>flying no-fly patrols. Easy for France to say "continue doing that" for
>another 10 years while we quietly do business and work for lifting of
>sanctions.

Yup the RAF was also flying ONW & OSW missions. At one time the French
were also flying OSW missions.

>> >Just how long are we supposed to enforce the no fly zones, with increasing
>> >AA activity towards overflights?
>>
>> At the very least until Afghanistan is stable, and the WOT is rather
>> further along. Instead of which the US is hamstrung, being
>> realistically unable to deploy any more troops anywhere.
>
>The no-fly zone was a political ham-stringing waiting to happen! The fact
>that no planes were lost...even to mechanical failures, over the past 12
>years I find somewhat astonishingly lucky. Add to it the increase in SAM
>firings and this is simply not tenable.

The increased SAM firings were virtually all ballistic (i.e.
unguided), and did not provide a significant threat to Allied
Aircraft. Far larger a risk was engine failure, and I agree it's
astonishing that it had not happened in 12 years.

>You are advocating a policy of allowing US pilots to provide Iraqi AAA units
>target practice for absolutely no political gain. Only loss is possible
>over the long run.

So 12 years isn't a long run? I was merely pointing out that looking
for trouble (i.e. invading Iraq) was foolish as there was no suddenly
increased threat, and we were supposed to be busy with the WoT.

>> >Doubt it. He wanted control of his country back! That means no "no fly" zones.
>> >That means crushing the semi-autonomous Kurds (who've been doing quite well on
>> >their own no thanks to Saddam).
>>
>> On the contrary, the Kurds have been doing well *because* of Saddam.
>> Most of the Kurdish revenue was from the oil being smuggled over the
>> border into Turkey, through the Kurdish areas.
>
>Economically oil helps. But oil doesn't create democratic institutions, and
>the Kurds actually have a reasonably well functioning democracy complete with
>talk shows with broad political/economic opinion. No help from Saddam was necessary!

SO without the oil where does the money for all the institutions set
up come from ? The Kurdish area have no significant industrial output.

>> >> Why? Is his army going to be better trained and re-equipped by then? Are
>> >> his people going to love him any more?
>> >
>> >His army will have WMD for all to see (if he doesn't already have them...for all
>> >not to see).
>>
>> But, I thought the army already had WMD, and never got rid of it all
>> post 1991? Or so Blair and Bush told me. So that one's a fallacious
>> argument.
>
>Had them or not, he'd have them by 2010 if sanctions were lifted!

But contrary to what you appear to believe the sanctions were not
about to be lifted

>> >UNSCR isn't binding and vital. Never have been. They are an annoyance and
>> >hindrance, about to be removed by friends in the SC. They're useful tools to
>> >whomever gets one passed.
>> >
>> >If you're Arab, they're great when the say Israel needs to withdraw from whatever
>> >town, or that Zionism = Racism.
>>
>> Well, no. Because someone has vetoed almost every single resolution
>> critical of Israel for decades - the US.
>
>Sort of like France with the US over Iraq, right?

Exactly. And look how popular the French were with the US for doing it
for about 4 years. Now look at how long the US has been doing it and
*some* of the hatred shown by the muslim world becomes explainable.

>If it weren't for US vetos, the UN would probably have voted a resolution
>calling for the "disbandment" of the Israeli state!

Err, you do recall that Israel was set up by the UN don't you? And
that under the UN charter they cannot disband a Sovereign State?

>> > Their irrelevant if they address Syrian occupation
>> >of Lebanon (does such a resolution even exist?).
>>
>> Not to my knowledge, in which case yes, a non-existent resolution is
>> irrelevant.
>
>That's the problem. Too many non-existent (and therefor irrelevant) UNSC
>resolutions against Palestinian terror or Arab occupations and political
>infringements on citizens. How can one think the UN is balanced, and therefor
>credible, in such a conflict?
>If one looks at the number of UNSCRs against Israel, versus the numbers
>against Arabs of all persuasion, you'd have to conclude it's a one-way violence
>in the Holy Land. It most certainly is NOT!

Having just checked the UN site for a dozen random years (I'm
buggered if I'm going to check 50 years for a USENET reply), all of
the UNSCRs were generally Egypt-Israel, Syria-Israel or such, calling
on *both* parties to exercise restraint, make peace, kiss and make up
and so forth. No doubt there are some against Israel alone (perhaps
for their various invasions of neighbouring countries), and against
their neighbours alone (for their various invasions of Israeli
territory). Of course what's not on record (at least online) are all
the vetoed resolutions by the US in Israel's favour, and the USSR in
it's client's favours.

>> >> >*Real* leadership isn't sitting back to let a majority decide how you should
>> >> >act. Valid national interests can't be overruled by a majority that does not
>> >> >share those interests, nor will pay a consequence if dangers or interests are
>> >> >not engaged.
>> >>
>> >> *Real* leadership also involves concepts like "finish what you started"
>> >> and "you hooked him, you land him".
>> >
>> >Angling expedition currently underway.
>>
>> True, but while the fish is still in the water you're asking the rest
>> of the world to get the nets so your fishermen can go home.
>
>I haven't heard that! Quite the contrary. I think the US is willing (somewhat
>reluctantly of course) to be in Iraq for several more years. That should have
>been the plan all along.

Well, most of the senior folks such as Mr Powell who are asking for
troops from others are also (in different statements) saying they want
to ramp down US troop levels. So I was perhaps badly stating my
comment in that the US isn't suggesting ALL US troops should come
home, but merely some of them, to be replaced by other nationals.

>> >Syria might very well be a viable target. I think one war at a time is a
>> >good rule though, especially when it is not yet clear if the outcome will be
>> >favorable.
>>
>> Well the US is currently on 2 wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), and
>> posturing mightily on the Korean peninsular.
>
>Which seems to have paid off.

Well, I guess that's a matter of opinion since last week's meetings
only had 2 outcomes. 1. They'd meet again at some point. 2. the DPRK
said they'd conduct nuclear testing.

Peter Kemp

[Stephen Harding]

Peter Kemp wrote:

> >Because he was about to be freed of UN restriction.
>
> No, he wasn't. The US had explicitly said (and the UK too IIRC) that
> they would veto any attempt to lift sanctions until Iraq was given a
> clean bill of health by UNMOVIC.

I think he was, either by official UN lifting of sanctions, or by increasingly
ignoring them by more and more parties.

The sanctions have been increasingly unpopular around here (granted, a very
liberal, almost downright communist local). They were seen to be killing
Iraqi children and nothing more, which to some extent, was true.

France and Russia, and to lesser degree Germany I believe, were increasingly
pushing to remove them [sanctions] and move on.

So whether officially removed, or de facto removed via ignoring them, I really
believe they were about to go. Saddam was getting closer to being out of his
box.

> >There's been plenty of trading with Iraq on the side, irrespective of any
> >UN resolutions. Iraq had been selling plenty of oil out from under UN
> >"Food for Peace" oversight.
>
> In breach of sanctions. Quite a lot of it as I've said being oil
> through the Turkish border. Yet despite the knowledge of this no
> attempt was made by the UN (or suggested by the US) to halt this flow.
> Down in the gulf was another matter, and the maritime interdiction was
> fairly successful.

Yeah don't know why the pipeline wasn't taken out. Maritime interdiction wasn't
that effective from what I've read. Some "large fish" captures of smugglers,
but schools of dhows hugging the coastlines hauling oil (and other goods) all
through the Gulf was pretty much the situation. Smuggling is apparently a way
of life in the region.

> >The no-fly zone was a political ham-stringing waiting to happen! The fact
> >that no planes were lost...even to mechanical failures, over the past 12
> >years I find somewhat astonishingly lucky. Add to it the increase in SAM
> >firings and this is simply not tenable.
>
> The increased SAM firings were virtually all ballistic (i.e.
> unguided), and did not provide a significant threat to Allied
> Aircraft. Far larger a risk was engine failure, and I agree it's
> astonishing that it had not happened in 12 years.

Still seems a disaster waiting to happen with not much political gain for the
effort.

> >You are advocating a policy of allowing US pilots to provide Iraqi AAA units
> >target practice for absolutely no political gain. Only loss is possible
> >over the long run.
>
> So 12 years isn't a long run? I was merely pointing out that looking
> for trouble (i.e. invading Iraq) was foolish as there was no suddenly
> increased threat, and we were supposed to be busy with the WoT.

I think going 12 years without a shootdown was quite remarkable. I've been
expecting a US/UK pilot to be on Al-Jazeera being paraded through the streets
of Baghdad for some time. The fact that it didn't happen in 12 years is no
guarantee it wouldn't happen tomorrow.

> SO without the oil where does the money for all the institutions set
> up come from ? The Kurdish area have no significant industrial output.

I understand they've done pretty well as "middlemen" in the trade between neighboring
countries. Can't quite place the borders in my mind but presume that would be Turkey,
Jordan, Syria, Iran. Not just oil passing these borders although oil would be the
big ticket item.

> >> Well, no. Because someone has vetoed almost every single resolution
> >> critical of Israel for decades - the US.
> >
> >Sort of like France with the US over Iraq, right?
>
> Exactly. And look how popular the French were with the US for doing it
> for about 4 years. Now look at how long the US has been doing it and
> *some* of the hatred shown by the muslim world becomes explainable.

The hatred of the Muslim world is explainable in "passing the buck" psychology more
than anything. Arab governments never gave two damns about Palestinians. A couple
of these governments even massacred them at a higher rate than Israelis ever have.

Concern over the Palestinian people is simply a useful tool to continue the fight
against Israel. Sometimes the UN is useful for this purpose too. The US as a supporter
of Israel (far too strongly IMHO) gets the fallout. This isn't going to change unless
the Palestinian "problem" goes away, and no current Arab government has any interest
in that happening.

> >If it weren't for US vetos, the UN would probably have voted a resolution
> >calling for the "disbandment" of the Israeli state!
>
> Err, you do recall that Israel was set up by the UN don't you? And
> that under the UN charter they cannot disband a Sovereign State?

Certainly. I didn't mean an actual UNSCR calling for the extinction of Israel, merely
an examply of what they would try if they could...and they might even get significantly
close to a majority vote on it !

> Having just checked the UN site for a dozen random years (I'm
> buggered if I'm going to check 50 years for a USENET reply), all of
> the UNSCRs were generally Egypt-Israel, Syria-Israel or such, calling
> on *both* parties to exercise restraint, make peace, kiss and make up
> and so forth. No doubt there are some against Israel alone (perhaps
> for their various invasions of neighbouring countries), and against
> their neighbours alone (for their various invasions of Israeli
> territory). Of course what's not on record (at least online) are all
> the vetoed resolutions by the US in Israel's favour, and the USSR in
> it's client's favours.

I saw a listing of a bunch of them and they were almost always calling on Israel to
withdrow from somewhere (Lebanon or some West Bank/Gaza town). Certainly fair enough
but the occupation of these towns has to be taken in the current context of suicide
bombers. I didn't see any resolution calling for the end of suicide bombing or Palestinian
authority to respect the borders of Israel. Most seemed to be very generic "kiss and
make up" as you say, resolutions.
[i]
> >I haven't heard that! Quite the contrary. I think the US is willing (somewhat
> >reluctantly of course) to be in Iraq for several more years. That should have
> >been the plan all along.
>
> Well, most of the senior folks such as Mr Powell who are asking for
> troops from others are also (in different statements) saying they want
> to ramp down US troop levels. So I was perhaps badly stating my
> comment in that the US isn't suggesting ALL US troops should come
> home, but merely some of them, to be replaced by other nationals.

Yes that's the way I understand it...after inital, WRONG implications that forces
would only be there a few months. All my readings suggest this is a multi-year
project, possibly extending into decades!

I'll be happy to have an announced withdrawl timetable of not more than a couple
years. If the Iraqis knew the schedule, they'd perhaps be less anxious about the
occupation [maybe not].


SMH

[Fred J. McCall]

David Henderson > wrote:

:In article >, Stephen Harding wrote:
:>> >If you're Arab, they're great when the say Israel needs to withdraw from whatever
:>> >town, or that Zionism = Racism.
:>> Well, no. Because someone has vetoed almost every single resolution
:>> critical of Israel for decades - the US.
:> Sort of like France with the US over Iraq, right?
:> If it weren't for US vetos, the UN would probably have voted a resolution
:> calling for the "disbandment" of the Israeli state!
:
:Like you wanted them to do for Iraq?

If this is your understanding of the reality, please ask the nice man
to modify your meds. Last I looked, a lot of better men than you are
remaining at risk in an effort to prevent that very thing from
happening. Otherwise we could just say 'screw it' and go home,
bombing them any time they do something we don't like.

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:


>
>I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
>support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
>Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
>aired and disproven.

The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.
>
>One problem is, the US has locked itself into a retrospective
>Francophobia. The French will go with their perceived interests... one
>tactic of diplomacy is to find a way to align that with what you want to
>do. Recall, after all, they had troops on the ground fighting alongside
>in 1991.
>
I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
France.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 12 Sep 2003 21:51:34 -0700, (charles liu)
wrote:

>Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
>> charles liu wrote:
>>
>> > And the beauty is Iraqis have to pay for the damage themselves
>> > (reconstruction cost is comming out of their foo-for-oil program and
>> > sale of their national oil reserve into the pockets of Halliburton and
>> > Chevron).
>> >
>> > The only parallel I can see is what the colonialists did to China 200
>> > years ago - beat them up, then graft their wealth via war restitution.
>>
>> Oh yeah! The US is going to become fabulously wealthy over Iraq.
>
>I guess you haven't seen the projected figure for oil revenue for the
>next 20 years in Iraq. I think it's into range of 10s, maybe 100s
>trillion dollars.

So? The Iraqis might get rich, but the US will not. We are not
thieves, and Iraqi oil money will go to the Iraqis.

Al Minyard
>
>> Sure not looking that way right now!
>>
>>
>> SMH

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(charles liu) wrote:

> I guess you haven't seen the projected figure for oil revenue for the
> next 20 years in Iraq. I think it's into range of 10s, maybe 100s
> trillion dollars.

Considering that all of OPEC, *combined*, sold about $200 billion in oil
in 2000 (at constant rates, about $4 trillion over the next twenty
years), you're going to have to come up with some real proof of that.
You're off by one or two orders of magnitude, at least.

Iraq's total proven oil reserves are in the 360 to 400 billion barrel
range, which means they have about $10 trillion dollars in the ground.
They're currently planning on pumping about 2 billion barrels a year (in
a year or so). Massive increases in production will get them up to
about 3 to 5 billion barrels a year. *Maybe*.

Over twenty years, they *might* get up to a single trillion in oil
revenues.

Oil companies (the ones doing the actual work) get about $1.50 a barrel
for extracting the oil. Which means that the oil companies will get
about $60 billion for doing all of the work that makes that trillion for
Iraq, while spending a *lot* of money to do so. While taking the risk
that something else bad will happen.

--


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

[Grantland]

Alan Minyard > puked:


>I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
>been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
>"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
>France.
>
>Al Minyard

Traitors like you need to be shot. A nest of Neo_CON Jewish Traitors
very, very badly need to be shot. "France an enemy" indeed. 'Bet
Britain would be "an enemy" if Toady Blair had been insufficiently
grovelling. Up against a wall, the lot of you. ****ing Traitors.

Grantland

The Founding Fathers

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
>>support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
>>Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
>>aired and disproven.
>
>The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.

Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

Might have worked again in 2003.

>>One problem is, the US has locked itself into a retrospective
>>Francophobia. The French will go with their perceived interests... one
>>tactic of diplomacy is to find a way to align that with what you want to
>>do. Recall, after all, they had troops on the ground fighting alongside
>>in 1991.
>>
>I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
>been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
>"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
>France.

So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
their own flank security?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:16:26 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>
>>The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.
>
>Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

And came to the aid of South Korea in 1950.

Not to mention the eradication of smallpox, the polio eradication
efforts, all the good work done by UNICEF and the other UN agencies.
Since I have friends working in various parts of the UN, it's rather
irritating to hear so many people ignorantly assuming the UNSC is the
whole of the UN work, rather than a small fraction.

Peter Kemp

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
>
> >The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.
>
> Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.
>
> Might have worked again in 2003.

You might note that the *last* time, Iraq actually had to invade another
country and threaten a couple more to get the UN to *allow* other
countries to respond...

--


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
> >On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
> >>I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
> >>support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
> >>Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
> >>aired and disproven.
> >
> >The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.
>
> Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

US troops were enroute and on the ground before the UN took any form
of "action". That the UN was on our side in that case was not exactly
requisite to our (including the significant UK aparticipation) doing
what had to be done.

>
> Might have worked again in 2003.

Why? It sure as hell had NOT worked between 1991 and 2003 (or do you
think the multitude of resolutions that were not backed up due to foot
dragging actually *meant* anything?), so why you think it would have
enjoyed a miraculous conversion to being an effective organization in
03 is beyond me.

>
> >>One problem is, the US has locked itself into a retrospective
> >>Francophobia. The French will go with their perceived interests... one
> >>tactic of diplomacy is to find a way to align that with what you want to
> >>do. Recall, after all, they had troops on the ground fighting alongside
> >>in 1991.
> >>
> >I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
> >been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
> >"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
> >France.
>
> So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
> Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
> their own flank security?

LOL! You must have missed the last-minute cringing of the French
leadership; you know, when they started waffling about actually going
into combat, requiring your then-PM and our then-President to get on
the phone to try to stiffen French resolve? And if you really think
the 6th LAD's "flank protection" role was that important, much less
critical, then I have overestimated your tactical/operational insight,
Paul. The fact is that the French were shuffled off to that flank
because we could not count on them, and we then backed them up with a
brigade of the 82nd Abn Div in case they pulled another last minute
"we have decided that we should give Hussein more time" crap. Having
them along played nice for the political unity story, and on France's
behalf it allowed them to demonstrate to their erstwhile business
concerns in the Gulf that they were supporting the
Saudis/Kuwaitis--but they did not have a great deal of value in terms
of military contribution. A bit more than the couple of hundred
Hondurans serving in the coalition, perhaps, but not much more...

Brooks

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:16:26 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
> >In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
> >>
> >>The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.
> >
> >Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.
>
> And came to the aid of South Korea in 1950.
>
> Not to mention the eradication of smallpox, the polio eradication
> efforts, all the good work done by UNICEF and the other UN agencies.
> Since I have friends working in various parts of the UN, it's rather
> irritating to hear so many people ignorantly assuming the UNSC is the
> whole of the UN work, rather than a small fraction.

Instead of mentioning the wonderful things the UN did 30 to 50 years
ago, how about mentioning what really cool things they've done *lately*
to balance out the stupid things, like the mockery they've made of the
Human Rights Commission? Or the disaster that was the "oil for food"
program?"

Kofi Annan's vocal support of Saddam Hussein was a severe black mark for
the UN, and it's shocking that more people don't know anout that...

--


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

[Peter Kemp]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:12:50 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:16:26 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In message >, Alan Minyard
>> > writes
>> >>
>> >>The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.
>> >
>> >Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.
>>
>> And came to the aid of South Korea in 1950.
>>
>> Not to mention the eradication of smallpox, the polio eradication
>> efforts, all the good work done by UNICEF and the other UN agencies.
>> Since I have friends working in various parts of the UN, it's rather
>> irritating to hear so many people ignorantly assuming the UNSC is the
>> whole of the UN work, rather than a small fraction.
>
>Instead of mentioning the wonderful things the UN did 30 to 50 years
>ago, how about mentioning what really cool things they've done *lately*
>to balance out the stupid things, like the mockery they've made of the
>Human Rights Commission? Or the disaster that was the "oil for food"
>program?"

Err, you may want check what I wrote. Small pox was only eradicated in
the last 20 years (which is why I have my scar from the shot), polio
is in the process *now*, UNICEF is still up and running last time I
checked.

>Kofi Annan's vocal support of Saddam Hussein was a severe black mark for
>the UN, and it's shocking that more people don't know anout that...

Splutter! What? I've never heard Kofi saying anything stronger than
"Iraq must comply" in favour of the old regime. Cite please (and since
the UN publishes almost all it's press conferences you should be able
to provide a URL).

Peter Kemp

[Stephen Harding]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>
> In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
> >On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
> >>I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
> >>support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
> >>Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
> >>aired and disproven.
> >
> >The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.
>
> Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

Invasion of a "brother Arab" neighbor (Kuwait) sort of helped.

> Might have worked again in 2003.

Not a chance. Conflicting interests and relationships with the Hussein
government between France, Germany, Russia, versus the US/UK.

Not to mention the sanctions increasingly being seen as "warfare" against
Iraqi children, "dying by the millions" (if you listen to the Left).

Even the apartheid South African government was humane enough that
sanctions could work. Not so Saddam. A government so ruthless, it was
perfectly willing to let selected members of its own people (a majority
by the way) suffer and die in the cause of nullifying effects of embargo.


SMH

[Leslie Swartz]

Yes, in the most obvious and extreme of cases, the UN can be dragged kicking
and screaming into doing the right thing, but only if the US pays for it.

Steve Swartz


"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
> >On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
> >>I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
> >>support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
> >>Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
> >>aired and disproven.
> >
> >The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.
>
> Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.
>
> Might have worked again in 2003.
>
> >>One problem is, the US has locked itself into a retrospective
> >>Francophobia. The French will go with their perceived interests... one
> >>tactic of diplomacy is to find a way to align that with what you want to
> >>do. Recall, after all, they had troops on the ground fighting alongside
> >>in 1991.
> >>
> >I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
> >been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
> >"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
> >France.
>
> So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
> Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
> their own flank security?
>
> --
> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:12:50 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Instead of mentioning the wonderful things the UN did 30 to 50 years
> >ago, how about mentioning what really cool things they've done *lately*
> >to balance out the stupid things, like the mockery they've made of the
> >Human Rights Commission? Or the disaster that was the "oil for food"
> >program?"
>
> Err, you may want check what I wrote. Small pox was only eradicated in
> the last 20 years (which is why I have my scar from the shot),

You might want to check some dates. Smallpox was "declared eradicated"
in 1980, after the last naturally-occurring case in 1977, and the
program was started in 1967 (with most of the work being done in the
first four or five years).

> polio is in the process *now*,

....as it has been since the 1950s. They're starting a big push, but
it's nowhere near the task smallpox was.

> UNICEF is still up and running last time I checked.

Yep. That program that was started a couple of generation ago is still
more or less in place.

> >Kofi Annan's vocal support of Saddam Hussein was a severe black mark
> >for the UN, and it's shocking that more people don't know anout
> >that...
>
> Splutter! What? I've never heard Kofi saying anything stronger than
> "Iraq must comply" in favour of the old regime. Cite please (and
> since the UN publishes almost all it's press conferences you should
> be able to provide a URL).

"I can do business with Saddam Hussein" was one of his most famous
quotes, from the 1998 meeting when Annan met with Hussein to try and get
inspections back on track. Five years later, they still weren't. That
pretty much tells you what sort of business that was.

Annan made a few aggressive noises, and has always had the threat
hanging, but has always resisted anything other than bureaucratic moves.

--


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

[Jim]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Kemp wrote:
>
> > >Because he was about to be freed of UN restriction.
> >
> > No, he wasn't. The US had explicitly said (and the UK too IIRC) that
> > they would veto any attempt to lift sanctions until Iraq was given a
> > clean bill of health by UNMOVIC.
>
> I think he was, either by official UN lifting of sanctions, or by
increasingly
> ignoring them by more and more parties.

Hard to Ignore a 5"54 accross the bow.

> France and Russia, and to lesser degree Germany I believe, were
increasingly
> pushing to remove them [sanctions] and move on.


Of course thay had contracts to exploit



> > >If it weren't for US vetos, the UN would probably have voted a
resolution
> > >calling for the "disbandment" of the Israeli state!

Care to say who in the UN would enforce that? I would guess a good part of
euorpe would be in range of Isreali missles.

>> Certainly. I didn't mean an actual UNSCR calling for the extinction of
Israel, merely
> an examply of what they would try if they could...and they might even get
significantly
> close to a majority vote on it [if it were possible]!

Is anti Semitism still rampant in Europe?

[Peter Kemp]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:04:57 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> wrote:

>Yes, in the most obvious and extreme of cases, the UN can be dragged kicking
>and screaming into doing the right thing, but only if the US pays for it.

IIRC the Japanese and the various Arab nations paid for the bulk of
DESERT STORM.

Peter Kemp

[Kevin Brooks]

Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:04:57 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >Yes, in the most obvious and extreme of cases, the UN can be dragged kicking
> >and screaming into doing the right thing, but only if the US pays for it.
>
> IIRC the Japanese and the various Arab nations paid for the bulk of
> DESERT STORM.

Not sure about that. There was a significant amount of "barter" type
payment (for example, the Japanese sent beaucoup light pickups, vans,
forklifts, and small busses that were used by various coalition
units), and IIRC the Saudis picked up the tab for a lot of the fuel
costs, temporary billeting, and a part of the rations (but I
understand that a lot of this was at marked up prices, like the air
raid siren one unit I knew of procured for use in Khobar Towers, and
the Saudi middlemen took a hefty cut...). When all is said and done, I
would be surprised if the bulk of each nation's costs were not borne
by that respective nation, with the exceptions of Syria and Egypt,
which IIRC did have their tabs picked up by the Saudis. Trying to
determine exactly how much of the total tab was in the end picked up
by "others" would likely be an accounting nightmare worthy of
Enron-class "adjustments".

Brooks

>
> Peter Kemp

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.
>>
>> Might have worked again in 2003.
>
>You might note that the *last* time, Iraq actually had to invade another
>country and threaten a couple more to get the UN to *allow* other
>countries to respond...

Sounds about right, unless you want UN-backed troops invading any
country who annoys enough of the Security Council and doesn't get a
veto...

The UN explicitly does not do "internal affairs". (Iraq was about
enforcing previous resolutions incurred over Kuwait) and in general this
is a Good Thing - as I'm sure the US would agree at the first
intervention it didn't like the tenor of.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:16:26 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>>I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
>>>support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
>>>Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
>>>aired and disproven.
>>
>>The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.
>
>Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.
>
>Might have worked again in 2003.
>
>>>One problem is, the US has locked itself into a retrospective
>>>Francophobia. The French will go with their perceived interests... one
>>>tactic of diplomacy is to find a way to align that with what you want to
>>>do. Recall, after all, they had troops on the ground fighting alongside
>>>in 1991.
>>>
>>I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
>>been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
>>"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
>>France.
>
>So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
>Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
>their own flank security?

The French were there in 91 because it would have been political
suicide NOT to be there. They provided little to nothing in what was a
US show (with a significant assist from the Brits). The French were in
a non-combat area safely away from the active fronts.

As for the UN, it is a bad joke. If the UN had done the right thing
and backed Operation Iraqi Freedom, it would have looked the same, the
US and Brits doing the fighting.

France is an enemy nation.

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Kevin
Brooks > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.
>
>US troops were enroute and on the ground before the UN took any form
>of "action".

Resolution 660 was passed on August 2 1990, demanding an immediate Iraqi
withdrawal. Resolution 661, imposing a trade and financial embargo in
Iraq, passed on 6th August.

The US announced the imminent arrival of leading elements of the 82nd
Airborne in Saudi Arabia on the 8th August.

>> Might have worked again in 2003.
>
>Why? It sure as hell had NOT worked between 1991 and 2003 (or do you
>think the multitude of resolutions that were not backed up due to foot
>dragging actually *meant* anything?), so why you think it would have
>enjoyed a miraculous conversion to being an effective organization in
>03 is beyond me.

If driving to Baghdad was such a good idea in 1991, why was it not done?

(With hindsight, 1998 was perhaps the best time for such action)

>> So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
>> Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
>> their own flank security?
>
>LOL! You must have missed the last-minute cringing of the French
>leadership; you know, when they started waffling about actually going
>into combat, requiring your then-PM and our then-President to get on
>the phone to try to stiffen French resolve? And if you really think
>the 6th LAD's "flank protection" role was that important, much less
>critical, then I have overestimated your tactical/operational insight,
>Paul. The fact is that the French were shuffled off to that flank
>because we could not count on them, and we then backed them up with a
>brigade of the 82nd Abn Div in case they pulled another last minute
>"we have decided that we should give Hussein more time" crap.

Which doesn't answer the question - if they were so much trouble, why
bother? Tell them that they can go back to France and the Coalition will
get the job done without them.

Sounds like there was a perceived need to keep the French on-side.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Kevin
> Brooks > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.
> >
> >US troops were enroute and on the ground before the UN took any form
> >of "action".
>
> Resolution 660 was passed on August 2 1990, demanding an immediate Iraqi
> withdrawal. Resolution 661, imposing a trade and financial embargo in
> Iraq, passed on 6th August.

You call that "action"? How many resolutions did the UN subsequently
pass over the next twelve years in regards to Iraq, and what was the
sum result of all of that "action"? How many times has the UN passed
its resolutions only to see no real "action" to enforce them?

>
> The US announced the imminent arrival of leading elements of the 82nd
> Airborne in Saudi Arabia on the 8th August.

Actually, my source (Brasseys) indicates 7 August, but whatever--if
they were "immenent" even on 8 August, it is obvious that movement
began even earlier than 6 August, right? And the UN did not declare
Saddam's "annexation" invalid until 9 August.

>
> >> Might have worked again in 2003.
> >
> >Why? It sure as hell had NOT worked between 1991 and 2003 (or do you
> >think the multitude of resolutions that were not backed up due to foot
> >dragging actually *meant* anything?), so why you think it would have
> >enjoyed a miraculous conversion to being an effective organization in
> >03 is beyond me.
>
> If driving to Baghdad was such a good idea in 1991, why was it not done?

It wasn't a good idea in 91. METT-T.

>
> (With hindsight, 1998 was perhaps the best time for such action)

By then we had a severe leadership problem--the only actions that were
undertaken were those that afforded zero-percent chance of friendly
casualties, and which afforded maximum *appearance* of "doing
something" (witness the laughable SLCM attacks against OBL in
Afghanistan and against that asprin factory in Sudan). It was not a
particularly proud period of time for a lot of us who were serving.

>
> >> So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
> >> Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
> >> their own flank security?
> >
> >LOL! You must have missed the last-minute cringing of the French
> >leadership; you know, when they started waffling about actually going
> >into combat, requiring your then-PM and our then-President to get on
> >the phone to try to stiffen French resolve? And if you really think
> >the 6th LAD's "flank protection" role was that important, much less
> >critical, then I have overestimated your tactical/operational insight,
> >Paul. The fact is that the French were shuffled off to that flank
> >because we could not count on them, and we then backed them up with a
> >brigade of the 82nd Abn Div in case they pulled another last minute
> >"we have decided that we should give Hussein more time" crap.
>
> Which doesn't answer the question - if they were so much trouble, why
> bother? Tell them that they can go back to France and the Coalition will
> get the job done without them.

Political appearances, apparently. In hindsight, we probably should
have told them to shove off.

>
> Sounds like there was a perceived need to keep the French on-side.

But the fact is that the French were not exactly a key part of ODS,
largely due to their own foot dragging. No offense intended against
the French troops who were there--an old friend of mine found himself
supporting that 82nd ABN DIV element, and he was rather impressed with
them, especially their Foreign Legion troops. But their national
leadership sent them there, and then waffled--little wonder they were
given a mission of dubious, at best, value, and then had US troops
trailing along behind even then.

Brooks

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Kevin
Brooks > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> Resolution 660 was passed on August 2 1990, demanding an immediate Iraqi
>> withdrawal. Resolution 661, imposing a trade and financial embargo in
>> Iraq, passed on 6th August.
>
>You call that "action"?

They were used to cover US actions thereafter.

The UN, lacking troops, can't put boots on the ground.

>How many resolutions did the UN subsequently
>pass over the next twelve years in regards to Iraq, and what was the
>sum result of all of that "action"?

Well, they were used to justify an invasion of Iraq in 2003.

>How many times has the UN passed
>its resolutions only to see no real "action" to enforce them?

Frequently. That's the nature of the beast, and why it's acceptable.
(Including to the US).

>> The US announced the imminent arrival of leading elements of the 82nd
>> Airborne in Saudi Arabia on the 8th August.
>
>Actually, my source (Brasseys) indicates 7 August, but whatever--if
>they were "immenent" even on 8 August, it is obvious that movement
>began even earlier than 6 August, right?

Airlift, and this is first arrivals.

>And the UN did not declare
>Saddam's "annexation" invalid until 9 August.

They demanded Iraqi withdrawal a week before that.

>> If driving to Baghdad was such a good idea in 1991, why was it not done?
>
>It wasn't a good idea in 91. METT-T.

We agree, but many others do not.

>> (With hindsight, 1998 was perhaps the best time for such action)
>
>By then we had a severe leadership problem--the only actions that were
>undertaken were those that afforded zero-percent chance of friendly
>casualties, and which afforded maximum *appearance* of "doing
>something" (witness the laughable SLCM attacks against OBL in
>Afghanistan and against that asprin factory in Sudan). It was not a
>particularly proud period of time for a lot of us who were serving.

I can't help wondering how much of it is chicken-and-egg. Clinton was
not a great friend of the military; but the military gave the impression
of being actively hostile to their commander at the same time. (Or at
least the members posting to Usenet, writing to Proceedings and AFJI,
and so on) This tends to lead to paralysis.

If he felt that he couldn't trust his military in any action that might
involve cost, he'd opt for safe standoff tactics. (What would the
reaction be to "Failed Raid Costs US Troops Their Lives" if Clinton had
used manned platforms or ground forces to go after bin-Laden? Would you
have respected him for using the best tool for the job, or despised him
for considering his troops expendable assets to be spent for political
gain? I'm thinking Desert One as an example here)

>> Which doesn't answer the question - if they were so much trouble, why
>> bother? Tell them that they can go back to France and the Coalition will
>> get the job done without them.
>
>Political appearances, apparently. In hindsight, we probably should
>have told them to shove off.

So why were political appearances so important?

>> Sounds like there was a perceived need to keep the French on-side.
>
>But the fact is that the French were not exactly a key part of ODS,

Never said they were. (They were more use than many realise in OIF too,
mind you; French ships were among those covering the several risky
chokepoints on the way to the top of the Persian Gulf, as shipping laden
with military supplies trudged to their destinations. Not a point that
got much publicity then or notice now.)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Kevin
> Brooks > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> Resolution 660 was passed on August 2 1990, demanding an immediate Iraqi
> >> withdrawal. Resolution 661, imposing a trade and financial embargo in
> >> Iraq, passed on 6th August.
> >
> >You call that "action"?
>
> They were used to cover US actions thereafter.

Be careful. You want to claim that we really used the UN umbrella in
this case by citing dates of UN "actions"? How about the fact that
Bush Sr authorized further US deployments on 8 Nov to allow for
"offensive action", while the UN did not get around to sanctioning
such action until 29 Nov? Or the fact that while your previously noted
resolutions did indeed pass on 2 and 6 Aug, it was not until 25 August
that the UN "authorized" military interdiction to enforce what the USN
(and RN, IIRC) were already doing (in the case of the USN, as of 12
August)?

>
> The UN, lacking troops, can't put boots on the ground.

Nor apparently can it (collectively) pour pee out of same boots with
the proverbial instructions printed on the heels... <g>

>
> >How many resolutions did the UN subsequently
> >pass over the next twelve years in regards to Iraq, and what was the
> >sum result of all of that "action"?
>
> Well, they were used to justify an invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Not by your illustrious UN they weren't. Face it, we were going in
with or without UN "authorization" or "action". We would have done the
same in 91 had we had to (as evidenced by the fact that our
deployments and enforcement actions predated UN "action").

>
> >How many times has the UN passed
> >its resolutions only to see no real "action" to enforce them?
>
> Frequently. That's the nature of the beast, and why it's acceptable.
> (Including to the US).

It is increasingly irrelevant.

>
> >> The US announced the imminent arrival of leading elements of the 82nd
> >> Airborne in Saudi Arabia on the 8th August.
> >
> >Actually, my source (Brasseys) indicates 7 August, but whatever--if
> >they were "immenent" even on 8 August, it is obvious that movement
> >began even earlier than 6 August, right?
>
> Airlift, and this is first arrivals.

Uhmmm...you do realize that they just don't shuffle over to the Green
Ramp at Pope and hop on the aircraft, right? This was not a deployment
of the ready company of the ready battalion of the ready brigade--it
was a full division deployment. Two squadrons of the 1st TFW made the
deployment trip on the 7th as well (not something you just go out and
kick the tires, hop in, and fly off for).

>
> >And the UN did not declare
> >Saddam's "annexation" invalid until 9 August.
>
> They demanded Iraqi withdrawal a week before that.

Ooooh! Another toothless demand from the UN; I note that Saddam did
not comply. Fact is, the UN would not get around to even authorizing
use of force until the end of November, after first having declared
that embargo without bothering to authorize any interception of Iraqi
traffic. In each case, US action predates UN action--we began the
deployment cycle before the UN ever began to think in that direction,
we began stopping shipping before the UN got around to authorizing
that, and we began beefing up the force for offensive operations
before the UN even got around to authorizing the use of force to
secure Kuwait. I don't think any of this bodes well for your "the UN
worked well in 90-91" theory.

>
> >> If driving to Baghdad was such a good idea in 1991, why was it not done?
> >
> >It wasn't a good idea in 91. METT-T.
>
> We agree, but many others do not.
>
> >> (With hindsight, 1998 was perhaps the best time for such action)
> >
> >By then we had a severe leadership problem--the only actions that were
> >undertaken were those that afforded zero-percent chance of friendly
> >casualties, and which afforded maximum *appearance* of "doing
> >something" (witness the laughable SLCM attacks against OBL in
> >Afghanistan and against that asprin factory in Sudan). It was not a
> >particularly proud period of time for a lot of us who were serving.
>
> I can't help wondering how much of it is chicken-and-egg. Clinton was
> not a great friend of the military; but the military gave the impression
> of being actively hostile to their commander at the same time. (Or at
> least the members posting to Usenet, writing to Proceedings and AFJI,
> and so on) This tends to lead to paralysis.

OFCS, when McCafferty showed up at the White House he got the cold
shoulder from a "senior advisor" in a none too respectful manner; not
a good start. Respect generally has to be a two way street; we had
none from Clinton and his crowd, and we knew it. That we accorded him
the respect due to a C-in-C was just an example of the professionalism
of the US military; it may have been grudging, but he got it. His
fandango in Smalia, where he took a humanitarian mission that had gone
rather smoothly from Bush Sr and succeeded in turning it into a
ridiculous "Get Aidid" mission (at the behest of the UN Sec General,
IIRC) from which he divorced himself and turned tail when things got a
bit nasty, was merely icing on the cake.

>
> If he felt that he couldn't trust his military in any action that might
> involve cost, he'd opt for safe standoff tactics. (What would the
> reaction be to "Failed Raid Costs US Troops Their Lives" if Clinton had
> used manned platforms or ground forces to go after bin-Laden? Would you
> have respected him for using the best tool for the job, or despised him
> for considering his troops expendable assets to be spent for political
> gain? I'm thinking Desert One as an example here)

That is utter bull**** Paul, and you know it. "Couldn't trust his
military"?! For gosh sakes, the US military did everything he ever
asked of them. The only lack of trust was in the other direction--he
said we had to go after Aidid and stabilize Somalia, and we did; then
he cut and ran and threw a nasty temper tantrum when things went to
hell in a handbasket during the Mog raid (for which his own cabinet,
and his closest advisor at the time, Shrimpboy Stephanopolous, was
responsible for not providing the very modest support in the form of
armor and AC-130's that the military chain had asked for) and ran away
like a scalded dog.

As to OBL, I seem to recall that there was a *real* opportunity to
nail him, and Clinton's NS advisor, Berger, refused to authorize
it--wonder how history would have turned out if that had not been the
case? No, much better to pop SLCMs at empty Afghani tents and a
Sudanese aspirin factory.

>
> >> Which doesn't answer the question - if they were so much trouble, why
> >> bother? Tell them that they can go back to France and the Coalition will
> >> get the job done without them.
> >
> >Political appearances, apparently. In hindsight, we probably should
> >have told them to shove off.
>
> So why were political appearances so important?

You'd have to ask a politician. Bush Sr apparently had some of the old
school diplomat in him, and was trying to husband a coalition effort.
Even then, the French proved to be difficult allies, with their last
minute "maybe we should give him more time" crap.

>
> >> Sounds like there was a perceived need to keep the French on-side.
> >
> >But the fact is that the French were not exactly a key part of ODS,
>
> Never said they were. (They were more use than many realise in OIF too,
> mind you; French ships were among those covering the several risky
> chokepoints on the way to the top of the Persian Gulf, as shipping laden
> with military supplies trudged to their destinations. Not a point that
> got much publicity then or notice now.)

Maybe because the USN also covered that same area? I doubt many US
commanders would have trusted the French last spring to actually stop
any attack against that shipping; they would just as likely have sat
aside and waited to rush to the survivors' aid. If you are getting the
impression that a fair number of Americans have not forgiven the
French for their pro-Saddam stance (and the protection of those oil
and gas contracts they had recently secured--gee, wonder what happened
to them?), then you would be correct, and I imagine it will be some
time before these sentiments recede.

Brooks

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Kevin
Brooks > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> They were used to cover US actions thereafter.
>
>Be careful. You want to claim that we really used the UN umbrella in
>this case by citing dates of UN "actions"?

It made it a *lot* easier to build a coalition, collect some allies, and
get basing rights. (And get more consensus postwar)

>How about the fact that
>Bush Sr authorized further US deployments on 8 Nov to allow for
>"offensive action", while the UN did not get around to sanctioning
>such action until 29 Nov?

What offensive action did they take?

>> The UN, lacking troops, can't put boots on the ground.
>
>Nor apparently can it (collectively) pour pee out of same boots with
>the proverbial instructions printed on the heels... <g>

Does the US really *want* an organised, powerful and effective UN? (Does
anyone?)

>> Well, they were used to justify an invasion of Iraq in 2003.
>
>Not by your illustrious UN they weren't.

Who cares about the UN? You're the one (elsewhere) citing UN resolutions
as justification for action, while simultaneously decrying the UN as
useless. Interesting dichotomy, no?

>Face it, we were going in
>with or without UN "authorization" or "action". We would have done the
>same in 91 had we had to (as evidenced by the fact that our
>deployments and enforcement actions predated UN "action").

With considerably more difficulty - where were you planning to base and
stage from?

>> Frequently. That's the nature of the beast, and why it's acceptable.
>> (Including to the US).
>
>It is increasingly irrelevant.

Quite. Why, you can now invade who you like, when you like, without
sanction. I'm not sure this is a good general principle.

>> Airlift, and this is first arrivals.
>
>Uhmmm...you do realize that they just don't shuffle over to the Green
>Ramp at Pope and hop on the aircraft, right?

Absolutely, but this is where the difference between announcing
departures and declaring arrivals becomes significant. Airborne units
are able to be fast-response - it's in their job description. IIRC we
keep a Spearhead battalion at 48hrs NTM.

>This was not a deployment
>of the ready company of the ready battalion of the ready brigade--it
>was a full division deployment.

The whole division went on the 7th?

>> They demanded Iraqi withdrawal a week before that.
>
>Ooooh! Another toothless demand from the UN;

Who's running Kuwait today?

Ah, what the heck. Okay, the UN is useless and all that matters is "do
these guys have friends who'll fight for them"?

>I don't think any of this bodes well for your "the UN
>worked well in 90-91" theory.

Okay, it was unilateral US force; the UN is irrelevant: and might makes
right. This might be convenient for the US in the short term, but it's
not going to do much for stability in the medium.

Trouble is, the UN is a bad solution but nobody has thought through any
better options.

>> I can't help wondering how much of it is chicken-and-egg. Clinton was
>> not a great friend of the military; but the military gave the impression
>> of being actively hostile to their commander at the same time. (Or at
>> least the members posting to Usenet, writing to Proceedings and AFJI,
>> and so on) This tends to lead to paralysis.
>
>OFCS, when McCafferty showed up at the White House he got the cold
>shoulder from a "senior advisor" in a none too respectful manner; not
>a good start.

So that's the basis for an entire military organisation's mindset?

>Respect generally has to be a two way street; we had
>none from Clinton and his crowd, and we knew it.

Knew it personally, or just believed it?

>That we accorded him
>the respect due to a C-in-C was just an example of the professionalism
>of the US military; it may have been grudging, but he got it.

Wasn't it Newt Gingrich who warned Clinton that he risked assassination
if he visited military bases?

>His
>fandango in Smalia, where he took a humanitarian mission that had gone
>rather smoothly from Bush Sr and succeeded in turning it into a
>ridiculous "Get Aidid" mission (at the behest of the UN Sec General,
>IIRC) from which he divorced himself and turned tail when things got a
>bit nasty, was merely icing on the cake.

Hey, I don't recall Reagan getting the same sort of criticism ten years
after his Lebanon intervention (which was also a feelgood job at UN
behest, which got ten times as many US servicemen killed, but was no
more effective for it)

>> If he felt that he couldn't trust his military in any action that might
>> involve cost, he'd opt for safe standoff tactics. (What would the
>> reaction be to "Failed Raid Costs US Troops Their Lives" if Clinton had
>> used manned platforms or ground forces to go after bin-Laden? Would you
>> have respected him for using the best tool for the job, or despised him
>> for considering his troops expendable assets to be spent for political
>> gain? I'm thinking Desert One as an example here)
>
>That is utter bull**** Paul, and you know it. "Couldn't trust his
>military"?!

Listen to your own words. Name a mission that the military undertook
under Clinton's direction that _was_ a success.

>For gosh sakes, the US military did everything he ever
>asked of them.

And derided every mission as a politically-inspired failure. How many
times would *you* keep asking?

>As to OBL, I seem to recall that there was a *real* opportunity to
>nail him, and Clinton's NS advisor, Berger, refused to authorize
>it--wonder how history would have turned out if that had not been the
>case?

Hey, the US _definitely_ had the perfect chance to eliminate Saddam
Hussein while he was a "useful regional ally" in the 1980s - wonder how
history would have worked that way? (Ain't hindsight great?)

>No, much better to pop SLCMs at empty Afghani tents and a
>Sudanese aspirin factory.

Reagan again: loft some airborne ordnance at Libyan tents, miss Gadaffi,
and come home calling it a success.


I find the difference in perception very interesting, when you have very
similar actions and results.


>> So why were political appearances so important?
>
>You'd have to ask a politician.

I'm asking you.

>> Never said they were. (They were more use than many realise in OIF too,
>> mind you; French ships were among those covering the several risky
>> chokepoints on the way to the top of the Persian Gulf, as shipping laden
>> with military supplies trudged to their destinations. Not a point that
>> got much publicity then or notice now.)
>
>Maybe because the USN also covered that same area?

No, the USN were up in the northern Gulf. (and it was four areas, not
one: easy to tell from a map. Gibraltar, Suez, Babr el-Mendab, Hormuz)

>I doubt many US
>commanders would have trusted the French last spring to actually stop
>any attack against that shipping;

RN commanders did.

>they would just as likely have sat
>aside and waited to rush to the survivors' aid. If you are getting the
>impression that a fair number of Americans have not forgiven the
>French for their pro-Saddam stance (and the protection of those oil
>and gas contracts they had recently secured--gee, wonder what happened
>to them?), then you would be correct, and I imagine it will be some
>time before these sentiments recede.

Trouble is, when you make policy based on sentiment rather than fact,
you run into trouble. You have to deal with the world as it exists, not
as you find it convenient to believe it.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Kevin
> Brooks > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> They were used to cover US actions thereafter.
> >
> >Be careful. You want to claim that we really used the UN umbrella in
> >this case by citing dates of UN "actions"?
>
> It made it a *lot* easier to build a coalition, collect some allies, and
> get basing rights. (And get more consensus postwar)

Consensus on what? Passing resolutions that they had no intent of
enforcing?

>
> >How about the fact that
> >Bush Sr authorized further US deployments on 8 Nov to allow for
> >"offensive action", while the UN did not get around to sanctioning
> >such action until 29 Nov?
>
> What offensive action did they take?

None. But note that (again) US action, in this case setting up for the
offensive military operation, predated UN action.

>
> >> The UN, lacking troops, can't put boots on the ground.
> >
> >Nor apparently can it (collectively) pour pee out of same boots with
> >the proverbial instructions printed on the heels... <g>
>
> Does the US really *want* an organised, powerful and effective UN? (Does
> anyone?)

I doubt that the possibility is realistic enough to worry about. But
if you are going to argue that the UN should have the veto over US
actions, then you better be supporting the concept of a UN that can
act and enforce its pronouncements--something it has proven to be
utterly incapable of. Therefore, it is functionally irrelevant.

>
> >> Well, they were used to justify an invasion of Iraq in 2003.
> >
> >Not by your illustrious UN they weren't.
>
> Who cares about the UN? You're the one (elsewhere) citing UN resolutions
> as justification for action, while simultaneously decrying the UN as
> useless. Interesting dichotomy, no?

Uhmmm... I believe I pointed out that in the case of Iraq, the US
actions (i.e., decision to send US troops, decision to prepare for
offensive military action, and decision to enforce restrictions on
Iraqi trade) predated UN resolutions. No dichotomy required; we just
took UN resolutions and enforced them in the end. After the US set the
course in 90, the UN followed. As to the latest conflict, I did note
to you that the ceasefire agreement requirements predated later UN
resolutions regarding NFZ's, WMD's, etc?

>
> >Face it, we were going in
> >with or without UN "authorization" or "action". We would have done the
> >same in 91 had we had to (as evidenced by the fact that our
> >deployments and enforcement actions predated UN "action").
>
> With considerably more difficulty - where were you planning to base and
> stage from?

Saudi Arabia agreed to US troops entering their territory long before
the UN ever started muttering about possible military authorization
(some three plus months before, to be more accurate).

>
> >> Frequently. That's the nature of the beast, and why it's acceptable.
> >> (Including to the US).
> >
> >It is increasingly irrelevant.
>
> Quite. Why, you can now invade who you like, when you like, without
> sanction. I'm not sure this is a good general principle.

There you go again with your desire to generalize everything...doesn't
work too well in real life.

>
> >> Airlift, and this is first arrivals.
> >
> >Uhmmm...you do realize that they just don't shuffle over to the Green
> >Ramp at Pope and hop on the aircraft, right?
>
> Absolutely, but this is where the difference between announcing
> departures and declaring arrivals becomes significant. Airborne units
> are able to be fast-response - it's in their job description. IIRC we
> keep a Spearhead battalion at 48hrs NTM.

This was no BN, or even BDE, RRF mission.

>
> >This was not a deployment
> >of the ready company of the ready battalion of the ready brigade--it
> >was a full division deployment.
>
> The whole division went on the 7th?

It started to (they all have to start somewhere--nature of the beast).
And the decision to make that deployment happen no doubt came before
your vaunted UN action on what, the sixth?

>
> >> They demanded Iraqi withdrawal a week before that.
> >
> >Ooooh! Another toothless demand from the UN;
>
> Who's running Kuwait today?

But gee, they did not get around to authorizing military action to
make that withdrawl happen until late November...do you *really* think
ol' Saddam took their toothless earlier "demand" very seriously? How
about those trade actions that the UN imposed...but did not get around
to authorizing enforcement of until about three weeks after the USN
had already begun doing so?

>
> Ah, what the heck. Okay, the UN is useless and all that matters is "do
> these guys have friends who'll fight for them"?

No, not useless. UNICEF and some of the UN world health initiatives
have been rather successful--it is just their willingness to pass
resolutions without being willing to enforce them that makes them
"irrelevant" in the conflict arena.

>
> >I don't think any of this bodes well for your "the UN
> >worked well in 90-91" theory.
>
> Okay, it was unilateral US force; the UN is irrelevant: and might makes
> right. This might be convenient for the US in the short term, but it's
> not going to do much for stability in the medium.

You do have a tendancy to try to oversimplify things, don't you?

>
> Trouble is, the UN is a bad solution but nobody has thought through any
> better options.

I don't know, looks like the option we carried out this spring was
better; at least all of those UN goals regarding Saddam have been met
now, and he is out of command to boot. I personally think that is a
*good* thing.

>
> >> I can't help wondering how much of it is chicken-and-egg. Clinton was
> >> not a great friend of the military; but the military gave the impression
> >> of being actively hostile to their commander at the same time. (Or at
> >> least the members posting to Usenet, writing to Proceedings and AFJI,
> >> and so on) This tends to lead to paralysis.
> >
> >OFCS, when McCafferty showed up at the White House he got the cold
> >shoulder from a "senior advisor" in a none too respectful manner; not
> >a good start.
>
> So that's the basis for an entire military organisation's mindset?

LOL! Not hardly. His little letter he sent to his former ROTC PMS did
not help his case with the military much. The Mogadishu dance occured
rather early in his presidency, and that one hurt him too in this
regard. Madeline Albbrights facetious comments to Powell during the
debate over what to do in the Balkans did not help him either. Are you
beginning to see how this all adds up?

>
> >Respect generally has to be a two way street; we had
> >none from Clinton and his crowd, and we knew it.
>
> Knew it personally, or just believed it?

See above.

>
> >That we accorded him
> >the respect due to a C-in-C was just an example of the professionalism
> >of the US military; it may have been grudging, but he got it.
>
> Wasn't it Newt Gingrich who warned Clinton that he risked assassination
> if he visited military bases?

I don't know. Not that I am a big fan of Gingrich, who is now trying
to style himself a military expert in fighting against the Army's
Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. At least with Clinton we *knew* what he
thought of us; Gingrich jumped on the military bandwagon for his own
gain, IMO (and never served a day in uniform himself, just like
Clinton).

>
> >His
> >fandango in Smalia, where he took a humanitarian mission that had gone
> >rather smoothly from Bush Sr and succeeded in turning it into a
> >ridiculous "Get Aidid" mission (at the behest of the UN Sec General,
> >IIRC) from which he divorced himself and turned tail when things got a
> >bit nasty, was merely icing on the cake.
>
> Hey, I don't recall Reagan getting the same sort of criticism ten years
> after his Lebanon intervention (which was also a feelgood job at UN
> behest, which got ten times as many US servicemen killed, but was no
> more effective for it)

Are we discussing Reagan here? I thought we were discussing Clinton...

>
> >> If he felt that he couldn't trust his military in any action that might
> >> involve cost, he'd opt for safe standoff tactics. (What would the
> >> reaction be to "Failed Raid Costs US Troops Their Lives" if Clinton had
> >> used manned platforms or ground forces to go after bin-Laden? Would you
> >> have respected him for using the best tool for the job, or despised him
> >> for considering his troops expendable assets to be spent for political
> >> gain? I'm thinking Desert One as an example here)
> >
> >That is utter bull**** Paul, and you know it. "Couldn't trust his
> >military"?!
>
> Listen to your own words. Name a mission that the military undertook
> under Clinton's direction that _was_ a success.

"Breathe in, breathe out..." This seems a bit beyond you, Paul. Look
at Mogadishu--HIS decision put those guys between a rock and a
hardplace, and then he refused to give them the modest tools they
requested to support the mission. Last I heard, we did eventually make
things a success in both Bosnia and Kosovo (at least militarily).
Which leaves you Clinton's other big military operations, the Desert
Fox operation (which he manf=dated was to occur when we were least
likely to get the folks we supposedly wanted to take out), and his
Afghani/Sudanes SLCM parties. Now where did the Military let HIM down?
And where was it vice versa?

>
> >For gosh sakes, the US military did everything he ever
> >asked of them.
>
> And derided every mission as a politically-inspired failure. How many
> times would *you* keep asking?

Any good examples of the military using those terms at the time?

>
> >As to OBL, I seem to recall that there was a *real* opportunity to
> >nail him, and Clinton's NS advisor, Berger, refused to authorize
> >it--wonder how history would have turned out if that had not been the
> >case?
>
> Hey, the US _definitely_ had the perfect chance to eliminate Saddam
> Hussein while he was a "useful regional ally" in the 1980s - wonder how
> history would have worked that way? (Ain't hindsight great?)

Big difference. For better or worse, we were not after Saddam in the
early eighties; but we most definitely *were* going after OBL, or we
supposedly were, when Berger pulled his SNAFU.

>
> >No, much better to pop SLCMs at empty Afghani tents and a
> >Sudanese aspirin factory.
>
> Reagan again: loft some airborne ordnance at Libyan tents, miss Gadaffi,
> and come home calling it a success.

Uhmmm...do you have a keyboard problem that results in your computer
inexplicably typing "Reagan" when the topic is Clinton?

>
>
> I find the difference in perception very interesting, when you have very
> similar actions and results.

How do you know *what* my perceptions of Reagan are? I'd be careful in
this vein...

>
>
> >> So why were political appearances so important?
> >
> >You'd have to ask a politician.
>
> I'm asking you.

I am not a politician.

>
> >> Never said they were. (They were more use than many realise in OIF too,
> >> mind you; French ships were among those covering the several risky
> >> chokepoints on the way to the top of the Persian Gulf, as shipping laden
> >> with military supplies trudged to their destinations. Not a point that
> >> got much publicity then or notice now.)
> >
> >Maybe because the USN also covered that same area?
>
> No, the USN were up in the northern Gulf. (and it was four areas, not
> one: easy to tell from a map. Gibraltar, Suez, Babr el-Mendab, Hormuz)

I think you should write an article and tell the world about the
valiant French contributions to OIF--it is gonna be a rather short
one, I fear...

>
> >I doubt many US
> >commanders would have trusted the French last spring to actually stop
> >any attack against that shipping;
>
> RN commanders did.

Since when are "RN commanders" known as "US commanders"?

>
> >they would just as likely have sat
> >aside and waited to rush to the survivors' aid. If you are getting the
> >impression that a fair number of Americans have not forgiven the
> >French for their pro-Saddam stance (and the protection of those oil
> >and gas contracts they had recently secured--gee, wonder what happened
> >to them?), then you would be correct, and I imagine it will be some
> >time before these sentiments recede.
>
> Trouble is, when you make policy based on sentiment rather than fact,
> you run into trouble. You have to deal with the world as it exists, not
> as you find it convenient to believe it.

Which says what about your whole, "We have to go into the DPRK because
we went into Iraq" rant?

I'd like to say more, but I spent the day cleaning up the
after-effects of Isobel and lack the drive right now...

Brooks