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