What You Don't Read in the Papers

[Occhidiangela]

Thanks for the clarification. Looks like I read a bit into that, sorry about that.

Here, have a Guinness, it's been too long since I bought you one. :)

[Occhidiangela]

There is no question that the email "shopping list" that Pete finds so worthless is indeed not "pure truth." What I was asking was: seeing things presented this way, does it change the picture in your head?

If the information contained in the e-mail is true, all the better for Iraqis, but the implied claim that life in Iraq is better than it has ever been under Ba'ath rule is bogus

Two points:

One: at present it is "life in transition" as in a great deal is changing.

Two: Some things are better, and some are worse, just like with any change, and it depends on who you are in Iraq. Again, Iraq is not a homogenous place. With this latest change, some folks are hating life, I imagine quite a few of the Sunni, and some folks are getting a bit of a better shake, like some Kurds, but to say "everything is globally better" strikes me as an overstatement. To say that at present, there are prospects for a more open society would be accurate, but there is also opportunity for more strong men to take over and create another autocracy. The Third World is replete with examples of

"Meet the New Boss, Same as The Old Boss!"

Varying examples include South Viet Nam after Diem went down, and Panama after Noriega was taken down by the US.

[ShadowHM]

If it was necessary to lie to the American public in order to make the removal of the Baath regime possible, then it is a good thing that they were being lied to. If what you imply is true, that the war would not have started if Bush had spoken the truth, which I doubt, then his lies probably safed more lives than they costed.

I apologize for responding so late to this. Life gets busy at this time of year. B) I have been scanning the posts here, but not giving much more time to them. However, the comment quoted stayed at the back of my mind.

Do the ends justify the means?

Democracy is supposed to be a form of government 'of the people, by the people, for the people'.

If it is necessary to lie to the people to do what is 'right', then there is something terribly wrong with democracy i.e. if a leader needs to lie to the people to get 'good things' done .

And if that is the case, why are we trying to export it?
Because it is still better than the alternatives? I happen to still think it is. But I still deplore the notion that lies are permissible for an elected leader, especially when he is taking his country to war.

[Occhidiangela]

As Occhi said international law is a bit of a joke nad always has been.

No, I said it is only as good as its enforcement. In some cases, enforcement is good, in some not so hot. Specifically in this post, I think I said that I see International Law as a work in progress. :)

But to specifically adress you.

(snip)

As for who you are - I have seen Jester before is this or maybe a past version of the LL. My guess is you are a psuedonym of another poster used to attack people so as not to soil your name. I beleive you once printed some trifleing little verse explaining who you were.

Ghost, this Jester has been around since before the Expansion came out. He and I were working on a "Magnificent 7" team with some other folks when I had to drop out. I have never noticed him to be a flamer, which category I now and again fall into, and I have generally found his posts to be worth reading, even if I don't agree with a lot of his assumptions, or even with his perspective on history. You may be confusing him with another entity, or I may not know that in a former, younger context, he was a flamer.

Back on topic:

As to Why International Law does not always work out, look at the allegations in this article in re China and UN Sanctions. I do not know how big a grain of salt to take this article with, and I cannot vouch for its level of truth, except for two things.

I know the Serbs are pretty handy with air defense: they used an SA 3 or an SA-6, I'd have to go look it up, to shoot down a "Stealth" F-117 fighter. SA-3 is a Soviet, Viet Nam era missile, SA-6 was introduced in the 1973 Yom Kippur War to the chagrin of Israeli A-4 pilots.

I am familiar with parts of the art of radar spoofing. It is plausible that some smart Chinese engineers made good, cheap, decoys to attract HARM Anti Radar missiles. HARM has been around for 15+ years. Chances are, some of its capabilities have been compromised via the usual combination of espionage and clever engineering tricks. Depending on the delivery platform, the HARM may be susceptible to some forms of spoofing. For example, if an EA-6B is the launch platform, the likelihood of successful spoofing is far less than if an F-18D (two seat) were the launch platform, due to the differences in equipment and crew on the two aircraft. If the launch platform were an F-16, I'd say it would be even more plausible, since a single piloted acft has to rely more on automated functions than a multi crew EW aircraft.

London Sunday Telegraph
December 14, 2003

How The Chinese Helped Iraq Fight The US

Beijing know-how was handed over to Saddam as air strikes began, reveals Con Coughlin.

Chinese military advisers played a key role in helping Saddam's air defences withstand coalition air strikes in the months preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to the Iraqi colonel who last week revealed details of Saddam's programme of weapons of mass destruction.

Lieutenant-Colonel al-Dabbagh, whose revelations about Saddam's battlefield WMD capability were revealed exclusively last week in the Telegraph, said he worked with a number of Chinese air-defence specialists during 2002 and the early part of this year to devise methods to stop coalition air strikes destroying Iraq's air defences.

"They arrived in the spring of 2002," said al-Dabbagh, who commanded an air defence unit in Iraq's Western desert. "They were personally greeted by Saddam and seemed very happy to be in Iraq. A couple of them even grew moustaches and wore keffiyehs (Arab scarves) around their heads so that they would look more like us."

Saddam is believed to have made a secret military deal with Beijing, which opposed the Iraq war at the United Nations security council. This was a clear breach of UN sanctions imposed on Iraq at the end of the Gulf War.

The deal was struck in late 2001 after allied warplanes, which were then patrolling the no-fly zone in southern Iraq, attacked and destroyed several Iraqi radar installations. "Saddam went absolutely crazy," al-Dabbagh recalled. "He said, 'If we don't do something fast there will be no radar left in Iraq.' "

Initially, the Iraqis recruited about a dozen Serb air-defence specialists, who were each paid $100,000 (£57,000) a month to help devise a method to protect Iraq's air defences from attack. But their contract was terminated when their attempts to devise a mobile radar system failed because they could not find a truck large enough to carry the equipment.

According to al-Dabbagh, the Chinese were more successful and devised a sophisticated decoy device which forced missiles fired by allied warplanes to hit the wrong targets.

"The Chinese device only cost $25, but it was very successful," said al-Dabbagh. "The American pilot would return home thinking he had hit three of our radar units, when in fact all he would have hit were three $25 decoys."

Al-Dabbagh, who is now in hiding in Iraq after death threats following last week's revelations, said Saddam was delighted with the device and personally thanked the Chinese technicians, who performed an oriental dance in honour of the tyrant

[kandrathe]

I think we can be honest with ourselves. Everyone was fooled. The US, British, Germans, French, Iran, Syria, Saudi's, etc. etc. He had remaining unaccounted for WMD in 1998 when UNSCOM bugged out, and there was no reason to believe that without a UN watchdog he would not rebuild his WMD programs. So, two things; Sanctions either did a better job of containment than we thought (to the massive suffering of the Iraqi people), or Saddam decided to play a cat and mouse game with his WMD program. I still believe that in another bunch of camoflaged holes somewhere are cache's of WMD materials sufficient to rebuild the entire program.

There was no lie. The only lie was the one we were telling ourselves; that we could avoid war by placating yet another ruthless dictator. It didn't work for Marcos, didn't work for Noriega, didn't work with Hitler, or Stalin, or Hiro Hito, or Mussolini. IMHO, tyranny thrives when free democracies show weakness and bury their heads in the sand.

For me it is the resurrection of an age old battle fought between Americans who believe that freedom is an innate human right, versus those who are unwilling to sacrifice in the face of oppression and tyranny. Back before WWII those people, called isolationists, were the majority which delayed the US entry into WWII for an embarrassingly long time. American pilots were going to Canada to join the RAF, and in China there was a famous bunch of rogues known as "The Flying Tigers". Even once we entered the war, in the European theatre, we were hesitant to commit our forces to the same levels that the Soviets, or Europeans had until D-Day. I do not hear the clamor for tribunals to examine the US / NATO led occupation of the former Yugoslavia. We were dragged against our will into that "nation building" exercise. How many US soldiers have died in the Balkans since the "official end of combat operations"? I mean, what is the daily body count tally? I really want to know.

Anyway, Shadow, this rant is not directed at you but to the topic. I feel that America has a very sad history of standing up to tyranny, and during the Cold War we did reprehensible things to prop up Dictators throughout the world in the name of Democracy. Sadly, some of the very same men we have dragged from power were put there by American interventions, including Saddam Hussain. This parallel has been mentioned in the Lounge before, but it is interesting to look back at the worlds attempts to contain Hitler prior to WWII. In 1933 Germany had strict import/export controls (Sanctions if you will) and they had a cadre of weapons inspectors insuring that Germany would not rise up again to attack Europe.

I would prefer the world body through the UN would choose to stand up to crimes against humanity, and to torture, and tyranny, but alas, there are a small handful of nations that have shown true metal. I will fault the Bush administration for wearing its trampling boots where diplomacy was called for, but still I think France, Germany, et. al. have made their point and the time has come for free nations to choose sides. Are they willing to set back and watch genocide, or wait for WMD to be used, or have a Tyrannt hold the world hostage, or will we intervene? I am one who thinks we should have done more to save lives in Sudan, and all of Central Africa. But we didn't and now MILLIONS of people are dead due to those confilcts. No, it's not our fault. But, we just watched it happen.

So then it goes back to balance, and the US certainly does not want to make these "who should be dragged from power" decisions unilaterally. So, to me, it is imperitive that the UN grow themselves a spine.

[Occhidiangela]

So, to me, it is imperitive that the UN grow themselves a spine.

Careful, there, the US is part, a big part of the UN. So are most of the Pariah Nations. So, who is it who needs to grow a spine? The rest of the Security Council? OK, I'll buy that, Security is suppose to be their calling. There is also a huge segment of our nation who are very leary of any more an activist UN, with all of its black helicopters, being supported by our tax dollars. Be careful of what you wish for, as you are sure to get it. :)

The leaders of the Pariah Nations often show plenty of spine, gall even. :P I mean, Saddam Hussein took on the US twice: all balls and no brains, perhaps, but isn't a similarly inclined man also a celebrity? Mike Tyson is who I refer to of course, although a ceratin Benito from a few generations ago also comes to mind.

[Bob]

Chancellorship was a step toward the British Model of Parliamentary Government.

If I remeber correctly, Bismarck was German chancellor in the 1870's. At that point, British parliamentary democracy was far from what it is now. The qualifications to vote changed in each county. From owning a valued at £10 or more, Having a house with a fireplace and lockable door, or simply owning a particular house. Women, of course, couldn't vote. The system had been very bad pre-1830's when the first reform act was passed. This still didn't really change much. People who had the vote went up from about 500,000 to 813,000, in a population of 24 million. A secret ballot was not introduced. The second reform act was passed in the 1870's, but hat still didn't make the system like it is now. It wasn't until 1918 (i think) that women got the vote, and I believe the last changes to our democratic system only came in around the 1950's. BTW, it's not a very good system:
e.g., 2 parties, labour and conservative. In every constituency labout gets 60% of the vote, conservative gets 40%, in the house, labour has 100% of the MP's, Conservative has 0%. Obviously it's more complex than this, but in my opinion Weimar Germany's system was better, with the exception of article 48.

If I got the gist of your post right, then I'm just pointing out that parliamentary government in Britain at that time wasn't a very good example to be praised. If I didn't then I'm just babling pointlessly. Either way, I'll shut up now.

-Bob

[Occhidiangela]

Was a slow and painful process of gradually wresting power from the Junker class. It was an uphill battle, but Otto von used that tool to his great advantage, and them promptly used it effectively to support his agendas. Otto was a pretty sharp fella. :) He was also a Junker.

The Kaiser, both father and son whom Otto served, like some of the royals to whom he is related by blood, was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

With the overthrow/abdication of the Kaiser, the attempts of the Weimar republic that ended in the election of an Austrian <i>caudillo</I> is an instructive lesson for those who are trying to now help Iraq find the path to parliamentary governmental forms.

It is too easy to retreat into absolutism, given the preponderance of sheep in any population.

[Chaerophon]

Unless you happen to be Jewish, homosexual, member of the wrong ethnic group, or in political opposition to Baath fascism, or have friends or family that fullfill one of these criteria.

Now, to a certain extent, that is fair enough.

Unfortunately, I'm betting that even under a democratic regime, Jews, homosexuals, and members of the wrong ethnic groups are probably still going to have a tough go of it in a society that retains such fundamentalist roots.

"Queer eye for the Arab guy" hasn't caught on in the Middle East as fast as did its predecessor in North America. I'd imagine that we're more than a few regimes removed (or is that removed regimes?) from such a revolution of Arabic consciousness. :)

[Moldran]

Unfortunately, I'm betting that even under a democratic regime, Jews, homosexuals, and members of the wrong ethnic groups are probably still going to have a tough go of it in a society that retains such fundamentalist roots.

a) Huge parts of Iraq do not have deep fundamentalist roots, if any at all.

b) There is a difference between "having a tough go" and what the Baath regime did to these people, don't you think ?


Edit: I did not read the first sentence of your post. I interpretated it wrong because of that. Sorry. Forget b)

I should not make so quick posts :)

[kandrathe]

:) Well, I guess I always refer to my idealized notion of what the UN should be, rather than what its become.

Anyway, I think we need some international collection of "responsible" nations to represent international decision making, and then have the will (power, spine) to follow through with their decisions. With enough wrangling and negotiation by the US, the Security Council (including Syria) unanimously agreed that Iraq had to cooperate fully and come clean with Hans Blix, Or Face Serious Consequences.

I'm sure everyone understood what serious consequences were at that time, but when it was clear, even with extension after extension of the deadlines, that Iraq was toying once again with the UN, our good friends and allies on the security council refused to follow through with their tough rhetoric. Maybe it was our heavy handed approach, or maybe it was their own selfish interests. Either way, they allowed the only international body to become a political circus which signaled every tyrannt of just how weak an institution it really has become. Want to commit genocide, develop WMD, or terrorize the world? It's easy, you just buy off some of the security council veto members with a lucritive oil contract.

IMHO, that whole UN situation was mishandled because it started with the premise that there existed a solution that would leave that Baathist Regime in power. Any scrutiny of the Bush administration and its stated goals and objectives left no room for a Baathist Iraq. This was a country that tried to assassinate a former US President. I'm not sure why that isn't considered a provocation for war. But you are right about them. All balls, no brains.

[Occhidiangela]

Maybe it was our heavy handed approach, or maybe it was their own selfish interests.

Maybe it was both?

&nbsp; Either way, they allowed the only international body to become a political circus which signaled every tyrannt of just how weak an institution it really has become. Want to commit genocide, develop WMD, or terrorize the world? It's easy, you just buy off some of the security council veto members with a lucritive oil contract.

That is not new to tje Iraq situation, of course.

&nbsp; IMHO, that whole UN situation was mishandled because it started with the premise that there existed a solution that would leave that Baathist Regime in power. Any scrutiny of the Bush administration and its stated goals and objectives left no room for a Baathist Iraq. This was a country that tried to assassinate a former US President. I'm not sure why that isn't considered a provocation for war. But you are right about them. All balls, no brains.

Good summary of the tension in place. As to the "tried to kill our pres" line, Pres Clinton, IIRC, sent a message in a flight of cruise missiles about that when he found out, however, as ever with a "pure silver bullet approach" the 'message' was ignored after the rubble stopped bouncing. I never thought of a cruise missile as a tool of diplomatic finesse, but the Clinton administration, and some of its military "experts" in uniform and out, did. Me, I always just saw a cruise missile as a weapon that blew stuff up and got to its target in a novel way.