Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[kandrathe]

Again, since harassing Kurds was on his "to do" list, and defending Israel was absolutely not, I see no reason why this paints a portrait of Saddam as any different from what we already knew for certain: that he was a pragmatic, ruthless, *secular* dictator. His support of terrorism was, as far as we can tell, entirely limited to these two areas, and did not include any support for Al Qaeda, or any other group except Ansar al-Islam. As for his tiffs with the Saudis, that's all neighbourhood business. The Saudis offer a thousand times the support to terrorism Iraq ever has. If Saddam was stonewalling them, it's because he hates the Saudis, not because he really loves terrorism.

Please read and digest at least the the Jonathan Schanzer article, because it draws all kinds of lines with names from Queda, Ansar Al Islam and other terrorist groups to Zarqawi, and Abu Wael aka. Colonel Saadan Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Aani of the Mukhabarat. I can put the evidence in front of your eyes but you are blind. I can show you that all kinds of terrorist groups had access to facilities, weapons, money and safe haven in Iraq, and you then you become an apologist for Saddam.

Not six degrees, and since when did we assume that this evidence must lead to a memo from OBL. I very much doubt that he drew it out for them on a napkin, and then signed it. Zarqawi is a Queda leader, he is known to have run a Queda camp in Afghanistan. The Jonathan Schanzer article shows that Zarqawi is operating freely, at the direction of Saddam through Abu Wael of the Mukhabarat. From the article, " 'Abu Wael's wife is Izzat al-Douri's cousin,' making him a part of Saddam's inner circle. Al-Douri, of course, was the deputy chairman of Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council, a high-ranking official in Iraq's armed forces, and Saddam's righthand man. "

"I see no reason why this paints a portrait of Saddam as any different from what we already knew for certain" -- the difference is that these are not just military groups harrassing the Kurds within Iraq, these groups are the same ones that fund cells, and train them, and then blow up trains in Spain, assassinate ambassadors, tried to use chemical weapons in France, and then Britian or fly planes into buildings. In many ways Iraq was able to provide for terrorists much more than Afghanistan ever could.

"... not a hill of beans" <-- What does that mean anyway? Is there some level at which harboring (aiding and abeting) murderers is acceptable to you?

[--Pete]

Hi,

That's what happened. Shrub must've read my post and said "Hey, that Pete's right -- we ought to just take Iraq over and run it ourselves. Now all we need is a good excuse" ;)

Ah, well.

--Pete

[Jester]

Well, let's try digesting that article a little more thoroughly, then.

The first thing to note is the author, and where it appears.

"Jonathan Schanzer is a terrorism analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of the forthcoming book "Al-Qaeda's Armies: Middle East Affiliates and the Next Generation of Terror.""

Well, there's two strikes right there. One: the analysis is from the pro-Israel lobby in washington, and is linked to by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. Clearly, we are dealing with an impartial source here. They certainly don't have any vested interest in seeing the evidence tilt one way. :P

Next, moving back up to the top, we find this:

"An Iraqi prisoner details Saddam's links to Osama bin Laden's terror network."

Oh, that's promising. More soft evidence. A confession from a prisoner who might (maybe not, but maybe) say anything to save his skin? Already this is shaping out to be the kind of objective look at the issues we need.

"Al-Shamari's account was compelling and filled with specific information that would either make him a skilled and detailed liar or a man with information that the U.S. public needs to hear."

An intelligence officer for Saddam Hussein? A detailed liar indeed. Skepticism must be applied in hearty doses, although we can't dismiss what he says out of hand.

" My first question to al-Shamari was whether he was involved in the operations of Ansar al Islam. "Yes." Al-Shamari, who appears to be in his late twenties, said that his division of the Mukhabarat provided weapons to Ansar, "mostly mortar rounds.""

So, Saddam, according to this guy, was supporting the Ansar movement. But, as I've said, Saddam has every reason to support an anti-Kurdish force, and that this is perfectly consistent with having no meaningful connection to international terrorism.

"Why, I asked, would Saddam task one of his intelligence agents to work with the Kurds, an ethnic group that was an avowed enemy of the Baath regime, and had clashed with Iraqi forces on several occasions? Al-Shamari said that Saddam wanted to create chaos in the pro-American Kurdish region. In other words, he used Ansar al Islam as a tool against the Kurds."

My point exactly.

"He explained in considerable detail that Saddam actually ordered Abu Wael to organize foreign fighters from outside Iraq to join Ansar. Al-Shamari estimated that some 150 foreign fighters were imported from al Qaeda clusters in Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and Lebanon to fight with Ansar al Islam's Kurdish fighters."

So, Saddam asks for support *against the Kurds*, and he doesn't much care who it is. So Ansar calls on their allies in Al-Qaeda. Again, this is just Saddam using the forces available to him to solve his domestic problems. This is in no way evidence of his support for Al-Qaeda or their internationalist terror objectives. If they want to come solve his problems for him, I can't see why he'd object. But that's a very different kind of link than the ones we've been looking for.

The rest of the article is not particularly enlightening past that.

So, here's the link, as I see it.

Saddam is connected to Abu Wael, who does dirty work for him as his head of "special intelligence" in the Mukhabarat. Abu Wael, clearly being well connected with just about every dangerous group in the middle east (I presume that's how you get top intelligence jobs with dictators), deals with Ansar al-Islam at the behest of Saddam as a potential solution to the Kurdish problem. Ansar, and by extension, Zarqawi, then brought on board whomever they could find, and, being an Islamist terror/guerilla network themselves, clearly recruited from other, similar organizations, "al Qaeda affiliates", although that implies a heirarchy that really doesn't seem to exist. Abu Wael is given access to whatever he needs to get these groups on board and fighting the Kurdish: mortar rounds, cash, visas, flights to Tahiti, whatever.

Saddam, through all of this, seems to have one crystal clear motive: kill Kurdish people. I can't see any evidence that he really cared how it was done, or who did it. Now, if the connection you're trying to prove is that terrorists have supported Iraq to further Iraqi objectives, then case closed. But that Saddam was working to support their objectives? No evidence of that whatsoever, as far as I can tell. He was using them as pawns, not supporting their agenda. Has he ever been connected to an event like 9/11, the Madrid bombing, the Bali bombing? Not that we've found. His support seems to be entirely limited to helping them solve his problems, which nearly every government in the world does at one time or another.

So, if we're going to use that kind of a connection to terrorism as a justification for war, we'll need to declare a lot more wars, because nearly every government is connected in that way to terrorism; the US government has been connected in far more tangible ways to such groups all over the world, Al Qaeda not being the least of them.

Nothing so far even resembles the kind of damning evidence we were told we'd find in a heartbeat after the invasion. Only a few whispered rumors, one intercepted document, and the confessions of people who have everything to gain by telling us what we want to hear. And even that points to the connection perfectly backwards: Terrorists helping Saddam, not Saddam helping Terrorists.

Jester

[kandrathe]

I found it on the PUK site, because I knew they are group most interested in getting this story heard. They made this claim well before even the US cared to listen.

Jonathan Schanzer has credentials that neither you nor I have, and he's been to Iraq in person within the last two months. He does caution us to be skeptical, and that adds to his credibility. He ends the article saying that additional corroboration and additional sources need to be explored, which I assume(hope) will be done. I guess you would also attack "The Weekly Standard", for publishing such unsubstantiated drivel or join in the condemnation of William Safire for reporting on the link to Al Queda in the first place. I think the critical piece you are missing is in taking the interview information Jonathan Schanzer obtained at the end of January, in conjunction with the intercepted Zarqawi CDRom from the middle of February. Together, and independently they present an image of an Iraqi complicity with terrorists linked to Queda. Yes, more needs to be done.

Ok, I challenge the more objective jounalists, like Barbara Walters, to focus their lens of truth on the subject. But wait! What are America's "investigative journalists" worried about? Hmmm, lemme see. "In a special 20/20, John Stossel puts his skeptical eye to work on another set of popular myths — some that you've asked 20/20 to investigate. Is it safer to drive a car or an SUV? Is it true that psychics solve crimes? " I guess they aren't interested.

Abu Wael is given access to whatever he needs to get these groups on board and fighting the Kurdish: mortar rounds, cash, visas, flights to Tahiti, whatever.

Why do you assume that these terrorist king pins are only doing as Saddam asks? Yes, they attacked the PUK, but there are clear links to Zarqawi activities in Germany, Italy, and Turkey. You are right that it is bigger than Iraq, though. There are big problems with the aid given Zarqawi, and others in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia as well. I don't want to attack them, and I don't know the answer. We need to convince them to not harbor and support murderers.

... the US government has been connected in far more tangible ways to such groups all over the world, Al Qaeda not being the least of them.

You just want me to accept that statement at face value without any evidence? What specifically are you talking about? BTW -- what would you consider an "Act of War"? Iraq passed that point with me when they tried to assassinate Bush Sr. It's not a Bush thing, and I would be just as PO'd if they tried to kill any of our elder statesmen, or women. All the other things about Saddam's regime, and the terrorism links, gassing the Kurds, and WMD research makes it seem all the more compelling. Like I said earlier, really a festering boil, only getting more infected and some action needed to be taken. The US went this way, lancing the boil, rather than using some more "UN medication". Maybe the "UN Medication" would have cleared it up, or at least made it so we could live with the boil for a while more. It might be that lancing the boil causes the infection to spred, but this one petty tyrrant has caused enough misery for our lifetimes. He had 30 years to show his colors, and I don't regret a day that he and his ilk rot in jail. The deed is done. We did it. We can wring our hands about it, or we can look at the situation and try to figure out what the best "next step" is.

Only a few whispered rumors, one intercepted document, and the confessions of people who have everything to gain by telling us what we want to hear. And even that points to the connection perfectly backwards: Terrorists helping Saddam, not Saddam helping Terrorists.

All I can say is that I see a viper, and you see a bunny.

But, even with your "bunnifying" spin on the topic, you've gone from "a complete lack of evidence", to "Is there anything more solid than the Ansar al-Islam connection?", to finally seeing some rumors, dubious confessions, one little damning CDRom. I'm just a guy with a browser -- think what a real investigator might be able to put together for you. I'm pretty confident, based on the plethora of information I've sifted through, that it'll be viper. But, I may be surprised, it may be bunny.

[Jester]

"You just want me to accept that statement at face value without any evidence?"

Please tell me you're kidding. In addition to known complicity with plenty of terrorist groups in Afghanistan ("it was for the greater good of bringing down the USSR") including Osama bin Laden and his nascent Al Quaeda group, there are dozens of instances of known guerilla and terrorist groups recieving support and funding from the CIA in Latin America. The cold war was almost entirely fought through such proxy actors, and most of them were not the most pleasant individuals.

"Iraq passed that point with me when they tried to assassinate Bush Sr."

[edit: grumble grumble stupid link... I don't know why it's not working, but a small blurb about it is available at democrats.com. Google it, it's around somewhere.)

Apparently that case was not quite all it seemed to be. Conspiracy nuts whining about who killed whom? To be ignored. The FBI investigator complaining about his results being deliberately distorted, a claim backed up by the inspector general's report? That's something else altogether. Has this story ever been satisfactorily resolved? It's hard to find stuff on it these days, since a google just brings up a million and one links to stuff about Dubya planning to assassinate Saddam.

"All I can say is that I see a viper, and you see a bunny."

I can only quote myself: "...he was a pragmatic, ruthless, *secular* dictator." (Now, I suppose Monty Python proposed a ruthless bunny, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a dictator.) What I object to is not the notion that Saddam is evil, but that, having been found evil, he must obviously be connected to all other forms of evil (pedophilia, drugs, terrorism, Hitler, bad hairdos, Communism, you name it, it's all one big fuzzy cloud of evil). "Evil" is not a grand alliance of everything opposed to the US, nor is it a sufficient reason to invade a nation.

"...you've gone from "a complete lack of evidence", to "Is there anything more solid than the Ansar al-Islam connection?", to finally seeing some rumors, dubious confessions, one little damning CDRom."

[Double edit] Which is the same as going from saying that there is no evidence Saddam has ever supported Islamist terrorism to saying that your evidence does not satisfactorily support your claim, to saying that even if it is all assumed to be true, it still proves a different claim than the one that was made, and isn't strong enough to hold water in any case. That all sounds like the same point to me. If you think it's progress, feel free to keep providing links, but unless I find something actually new in them, I'm unlikely to change my mind.

"I'm just a guy with a browser -- think what a real investigator might be able to put together for you."

I don't really have to think about it. I pretty much already know: Some unsubstantiated rumours, some confessions under duress (or by collaborators), and one document, from after the fall of Saddam's regime. How do I know this? Because if there was anything else, the administration would be holding it up for everyone to see as if they just won "Most Improved Player" in little league. Why haven't they? Because there's no case, and even they're not daft enough to try passing off what terribly little they have under public scrutiny.

Jester

[kandrathe]

Please tell me you're kidding. In addition to known complicity with plenty of terrorist groups in Afghanistan ("it was for the greater good of bringing down the USSR") including Osama bin Laden and his nascent Al Quaeda group, there are dozens of instances of known guerilla and terrorist groups recieving support and funding from the CIA in Latin America. The cold war was almost entirely fought through such proxy actors, and most of them were not the most pleasant individuals.

I would say there is a difference between using guerilla's and paramitilitaries in fighting a proxy war with USSR, than sanctioning groups to infiltrate into Moscow to assassinate members of the Politboro or blow up the Kremlin. The later is an act of war, and if we had done that, the USSR would have been justified in rooting out that evil. While in Afghanistan OBL was a junior commander within a guerilla paramilitary organization, bent on repelling Soviet soldiers from the nation. After the soviets pulled out, OBL went back to the Saudi's and offered to take his arab force into Yeman, but the Saudi's refused. He then became disenchanted with world as it is, and then began his new Jihad and emerged as a terrorist. He might have decided to re-enter Saudi society with some prestige after Afghanistan, but he chose a different path.

For instance, I don't consider RPG attacks on military compounds or the roadside bombings of US humvee's in Iraq terrorism. But, blowing up the UN headquarters is. Bringing the fight to the people who are trained to defend themselves is war, but intentionally killing civilians is terrorism.

If you think it's progress, feel free to keep providing links, but unless I find something actually new in them, I'm unlikely to change my mind.

I will, and that's all I can ask for. I too promise to keep an open mind.

As for the administration blowing their own horn. I think they try, but it is drowned by the press and their "topic du jour" approach to entertaining the public.

[Jester]

"I think they try, but it is drowned by the press and their "topic du jour" approach to entertaining the public."

Perhaps. But there are people like Safire in the world. These people spend each and every day pouring over this kind of stuff, looking for something (anything) that supports their position. They're pundits. It's their job. While I would not think it unlikely that the press' innattention blocks plenty of relevant information from our eyes and ears, I'm pretty sure the priority on this kind of thing is pretty high. If nothing else, it would ingratiate them with the white house, which is a very large asset in the news world.

"I would say there is a difference between using guerilla's and paramitilitaries in fighting a proxy war with USSR, than sanctioning groups to infiltrate into Moscow to assassinate members of the Politboro or blow up the Kremlin."

Well, anything as bold as that would have gotten the western world vaporized. There's a power grab, and then there's just plain old ridiculous. Usually, the groups who the US supported, especially in Latin America, were not necessarily self-defined terrorist groups (really, who is?) but rather insurgents, rebels, and "counterrevolutionaries" who fought guerrilla wars and used the methods of terrorism to further their aims (killing civilians, assassinating politicians, etc...) Often, they rose to power afterwards, which makes them look more acceptable, although most continued their "terrorist" activities once in power, under the aegis of legitimate authority. I suppose that's how al-Qaeda thinks of themselves, though, so I'm not sure what we can take from that except that it's one big slippery slope out there.

Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

"A revolutionary is just a successful rebel." -- Can't remember the source, couldn't find it online, not completely sure if I've got the phrasing right. First heard it in the mid to late '60s.

"Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." -- Sir John Harington

Or, a lot closer to home: "Where you sit determines what you see" -- Over Caffeinated Rogue :)

--Pete

PS Trivial point of the day. ieSpell recognizes decaffeinated but not caffeinated ;)
PPS Second trivial point of the day. ieSpell does *not* recognize "ieSpell" ;)

[kandrathe]

Ridiculous? Maybe. Seems all of our Federal buildings are protected by massive concrete bunkers to prevent suicide attacks. You are right, though in that the US, and CIA in particular in hindsight made some bad choices over the past 50 years (and some were probably between bad, and worse). We ourselves were considered a band of rebels by the British Empire, and so it is hard for us sometimes to not look at Chechyn rebels, or Afghani muhajadin's as brother rebels. There are different movements even within those struggles, like the muhajadin leader(Ahmed Shah Massoud) that OBL's group assassinated for the Taliban. I'm not very familiar with the Basque seperatist movement, but I would suspect that there are seperatists, and then there is ETA. Same for northern Ireland, some people are just willing to go one level further, into terrorism. I found this story yesterday when I was digging around, and of particular interest was the story of Shadi Abdallah.

Zarqawi explained to him that the goal of his organization, Al Tawhid, was the overthrow of the Jordanian monarchy, and he invited Abdallah to go to Jordan to participate in the organization. Abdallah declined, and Zarqawi sent him to Germany in mid-2001 (Abdallah had lived there previously) to organize terror attacks against Jews and Americans. Arrested by German authorities late last year, Abdallah turned state's evidence against his comrades, and his testimony is quite recent; his latest interrogation dates to last September(2002).

National Review: The Europeans Know More Than They Now Pretend? Micheal Ledeen February 11, 2003
So, I see it as each person deciding to what level they will slide down that slope. Kill Germans, Americans and Jews, fine. Kill the Jordanian royal family, no way.

There are some like Hamas, PLO or Sinn Féin that are trying to develop (into) a political organization. Like with Libya, I'm willing to move on if they have given up supporting organizations and actions (whatever you want to call them) that target and kill civilians. I remember having a very lively debate with a member of the ANC back in the early 80's where I espoused my opinion that "necklacing" was barbaric. I guess I have a very clear boundary when it comes to killing people. I can support people who take up arms against their oppressors, but I personally regret every civilian death, even if it is accidental.

"The People" of America also have a history of trying to reign in their government when we discover that they have supported some ruthless third world tyrrant. Some, like Marcos or Noriega we then go on to help drive out of power. Some, where our interests are not at risk, like Aristede or Mugabe, we just step aside a let the people decide.

I'd like to think that we've been doing better lately at choosing the right side.

[Occhidiangela]

Edit, afterthought: It's a scary world when George Bush Sr. seems like an elder statesman of mythical proportion and oracular foresight.

What is scary is how limited your perspective is.

Some of us who have watched foreign policy for some time think GHW Bush was fairly competent at foreign policy. (I won't call him brilliant, few ever achieve that level. Metternich is not born every week.) Your failure to recognize his basic comptetnce is based more on your own blinders, and I dare say an anti-Western point of view, than on his actual record. GHW Bush is, and was, far more of an "pragmatic internationalist sovereignist" than any number of others I could mention.

I personally still give him bad marks for the Somalia operation, it was a complete waste of time, but while it ran under his rules it worked well enough. It came a cropper after Pres Clinton asked 1/3 of the troops to do the same job as the original 20,000 Marines. Gee, no surprise, things got worse when a half hearted effort was put forth. (there were operational errors as well, that no one should ever blame Pres Clinton for. He just set the conditions for, like LBJ/McNamara in another place, doing it half way.)

Where else to we see that a half baked effort makes a mess? The entire UN operation in Bosnia up until NATO played "out of area," the half baked attempts of the international communit to deal with the Rwanda fiasco, and I will stop with that sort list.

But as to being there in the first place, there was NO compelling national interest for America to be in Somalia, merely a desire to "do good." "Building good will" by catering to foreign aid junkies in concert with dozens of NGO's and donor organizations whose infusion of capital (in the form of aid) completely disrupted an already kaput economy and made "who controlled the free money" the coin of the realm. All to stop those useless, bleeding heart CNN pictures. Never let the media drive your foreign policy, leave to them reporting what you do. That is their job: reporting.

Doing good with bayonets is a hobby that typically produces mixed results. See the sucking chest wound that is Bosnia, Haiti in 1994 and now, or a different flavor in Cyprus, for fine examples. Peace will only last until the foreigners leave.

Think about that as a testament to how broken many places in the world are in the first place. Why? They don't "get" the Western idea of self governance beyond Musollini's broken model. :P

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Perhaps. But there are people like Safire in the world. These people spend each and every day pouring over this kind of stuff, looking for something (anything) that supports their position. They're pundits. It's their job.

Good point, but there are pundits of all flavors, from screaming left to shouting right. Trying to find objective reporting is rather difficult.

[Occhidiangela]

Or for that matter, an Islamic Republic, the real question is:

What flavor of Islam are we talking about? What about a resurgence of Sufism? {Wouldn't that be a nice switch! )

Which jurists and commentators on Al Quran, the record of the reported utterances of an illiterate Semite, have the interpretations that fit within a system that does not fuse Church(Mosque) and State? The Islamic enlightenment in the medeival period hardly fits the modern world. It's old news.

I'd venture to say that until Islam has the sort of internal upheaval that Christianity had, and a similar "enlightenment" that fits the modern world somewhat, then I'd guess the prospects for an Islamic Republic that is also a "democracy" with free speech and freedom to dissent, and for that matter, freedom of worship, is a very long shot.

I'd love to see the people who live in Iraq prove me completely wrong. :) Regardless of whose model they like best, what ever works there will be made to work by the folks there, not by outsiders. Our own forming storming norming performing process took a few generations.

"Till somebody we like can be elected" has a poor track record.

As to the President, as we discussed elsewhere:

Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. Still others, I think we agreed, find themselves in a position requiring greatness and strive mightily to clear that rather high bar.

Not every politician is cut from the same cloth as Lech Walensa . . . maybe that is because he started as a shipyard worker.

-- The Now Quotable Overcafeinated Rogue --

[Occhidiangela]

EDIT: Forgot to retitle the post after preview.

TITLE: Who and what we are dealing with

Saddam Hussein. A fellow who practiced the art of the possible. A gambler. A forceful personality. An "ends justifies the means" sorta guy. A man not shy in the least about shedding anyone's blood for no better reason than he either wanted to, needed to, or had a bone to pick with someone.

That they interact, even sometimes work together again is not a question. But that an Islamic secular state, which the fundamentalist Muslims abhor would work together with a terrorist group of those same fundament defies logic.

Here you and I will disagree. I believe neither the terrorists in question nor Saddam feel bound by moral or ideological limitation in achieveing their ends, just practical ones. They used one another, like most political folks do, to include "legitimate governments."

I see no illogic whatever in Saddam having his eye on any number of operatives or organizations (sorta like the US's Oliver North deal in Iran Contra) whose aims met his. Their common ground was antipathy toward the US -- whose iron will kept the sanctions in place on his country while the Frogs and the Russkies barked to end them.

I can see him and a few of his trusted bubbas, working if not directly with, at least at arm's length with, any number of nasty folks with an eye toward "an enemy of my enemy can be my friend . . . for the time being." His hero Stalin cut that sort of deal with Hitler. I have to temper that thought with the reports that Saddam was a bit of a control freak. He trusts, and trusted, few people on this planet. As for the terrorists, they too would, if they got any support at all from Saddam, keep him at arm's length. Why? They know his rep.

As far as to the presence of terrorists in Iraq prior to the war, it is not surprising that they were there.

Yes. However, given that he ran a Stalinist police state, your comparison to . . .

Ireland, in Spain, in France, even (gasp!) in the USA

misses the mark. You just named open societies, whose strategic weakness has ever been their tolerance for everyone, to include their own enemies. Tis a civic and social strength, but in terms of power plays in the art of the possible, which is what terrorism-the-subset-of-realpolitic is, 'tis a weakness.

To use terrorism to justify the invasion of Iraq, one must show that those terrorists were working in that country with the knowledge and approval of the government.

Really? According to whom? That is not the policy that was declared shortly after 9-11. To be passive and to let them operate freely in your country is the sort of benign negligence that a terrorist thrives on, and Pres Bush took the rather ambitious, possibly Quixotic, step of defining terrorists as his, and the free world's enemy. Those who look the other way are indeed part of the problem, just as with organized crime. (You do address a bit of this later.)

You also missed at least one intermediate step. Many governments work with us to supress terrorism, to include the ones mentioned, to one extent or another. They were never a threat to be had by "and if you support and harbor terrorists, you have chosen to oppose us." All the carping about Freedom Fries was rancor over the screw job at the UN.

Now, did Saddam harbor terrorists? Were they there with his knowledge but kept tabs on? (That is my guess) Were they there completely secretly? The Ansar Al Islam base tells me . . . no. And no, Al Qaeda is not the only issue, nor was it ever.

Al Qaeda seems to represent the "Idiots' single cause terrorist" for the uncritical mind. As I understand the organization, they are rather new. Hezbollah has, or had, more street cred . . . until 1998, when the bombings of the embassies in Africa made headlines, and got OBL noticed. I also note that I was confused by the pundits and others who linked OBL and Saddam . . . both wished us ill, but in wholly differently contexts.

And not just *some* members of the government. There are IRA supporters in Parliament, Basque supporters in the Spanish government, and, for all I know, militia supporters in the USA. There sure were KKK supporters in Congress within the last seventy years.

Agreed, which is what makes terrorism so damned hard to deal with. Your comments in re crime elsewhere match my own sentiments in the general sense. All those invisible threads, some visible. Swimming with the fishes, per Mao. A cancer.

*After* the US invasion of Iraq, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists will use the fact that Iraq is at least nominally Muslim to spin more anti-USA sentiment.

If they did not have that excuse, they'd use another. About that I am certain. 9-11 happened before Iraq. USS Cole. Beirut, 1983. The two embassies. Khobar Towers. The attempt on WTC in 1993. The massacre in Rome'a airport in 1985. There will be others. OBL's group is one of many.

Since it is shown that Iraq was an accomplice to terrorism under Saddam . . .

Where?

I think the "open source" info that has been running around in re Saddam endorsing and paying off families of Palestinian suicide bombers is yet to be shown in error. Mind you, that was a game he was playing to an Arab audience, the "Israel sucks" card. So, it makes for a contributory black mark, but not a single justification for taking him down. There was always more than one basis.

At least three off the top of my head:

UN Sanctions not complied with for 12 years (All the sanctions were doing was screwing the little guy, but that was all the UN could ever agree to do, other than threaten and hollar. Wonderful. If you accept the reports of 500,000 dead in the 12 years leading up to the war, which I don't, then this last year has been an improvement, even with a war. Weird.

Terror support (Mostly known versus Israel, and again, he's got his own axe to grind, and probably preferred to do things his own way due to the trust/control issue.)

WMD programs at odds with both UN sanctions and all the treaties Iraq is party to. (hmmm, loks like the Saddam's deception plan worked too well on that one, as we discussed elsewhere . . .)

Non stated reasons, and the reasons that every liberal, in the real sense, should be glad he is gone, is his abuse of the average Achmed on a casual basis. (Of course, you could not sell that to America, nor to the UN, as a reason to get rid of him. Interesting, considering that about a third of the UN's nations are despots, sorta like Saddam-lite. ;) DHO!)

That there were some terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion is established. That some members of the Iraq power structure supported terrorism is somewhat established.

So far so good.

As I've said above, the same can be said of England. That the Iraqi government under Saddam supported terrorism is not established. That it supported fundamentalist Islamic terrorism is unlikely.

Also agreed.

However, knowing that:

What does one DO?

While we each have our own opinions about what not to do, someone decided to DO something about him. He was intractable, has always been, and unlike England, Spain, France, Japan, Egypt, Turkey, POland, Russia, et al . . . he cannot be "worked with."

Were there other, workable options? Probably, of uncertain effectiveness. If I could have thought of one, I'd have written the article and gotten it published, and likely been the toast of the media for a few weeks. Wish I had had a good proposal, but sadly, I did not. At least you were all spared seeing me on TV. :lol:

As I noted elsewhere, I think the assumption (you noted in another post the thin victory) of a defeat in 2004 was a factor in getting something done before the party of appeasement hit the White House again. That is the only explanation I have for why it had to happen in 2003, besides riding the emotion of 9-11 while it was there. Why NOW?

"Justified" What an interesting term.

It is almost as though the discussion going on is some sort of court room soap opera. Real world geopolitiks gets talked about at the salon level, but in getting anything done, it gets done at the execution level. And people die. The comments someone made about war really do apply:

"The two belligerents are neither one of them moral, one is just more immoral than the other." Not sure who that is from.

In the immoral world of geopolitics, there are no rules beyond "what can I get away with?" That is not news.

So, while we discuss "should or should not" the die has been cast.

The question is" What now?" Or as Lenin asked:

"Chto delat?" (Which I think means 'what is to be done?')

That is not a question for Pres Bush. Nor for Pres Kerry, if he wins. (Hey, back to the original topic of the thread!!!!! ) It is a question for the American people.

Can The People work through a hard, difficult to simplify security problem? If so, how nice. If not, it does not matter who is in the White House: the enemy will have the advantage.

--Rambling Rogue--

[--Pete]

Hi,

While you have an excellent point there, it is a point besides the point.

We do indeed have a full spectrum of pundits. If the pundits for the right (from just off center to Attila) cannot come up with strong evidence to support the actions of the right, then it is safe to assume that no such evidence exists (yet).

--Pete

[Jester]

"I won't call him brilliant, few ever achieve that level. Metternich is not born every week."

Yeah. It takes a great genius to get up in the morning, shower, have breakfast, and stop all progress in the western world. The entire continent of Europe exploded under the pressure of repressed social change, held down by autocracies who now can rely on each other for support. Major, nation destroying revolutions every generation, followed by harsh crackdowns? Yeah, I'm actually rather glad Metternich isn't born every week. We'd have a world full of reactionary assholes who would rather see stability than freedom.

"What is scary is how limited your perspective is."

This is, unfortunately, true of everyone.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Yes, Metternich was a reactionary, but he gave "the world" what it wanted: stability. Given what the sick crap of the revolutions of 1848 turned to, he was not all wrong, but yeah, he as a tool of the imperial courts. Within that context, he was pretty damned clever. Jester, dealing with over inflated egoes as a profession is not an easy task. :lol: Remember, I spent a few years as a Navy Pilot, and the ego that goes with that makes for some interesting synergy/dysfunction, pick the day.

Note what the wanker-appeasers want: stability, a bubble wrapped worle, no violence, no bad pictures, no sadness . . . sh*** we all want that, it's the getting it that is such a pain in the arse. No matter what day it is, some one, somewhere in the world, is pissed off. Kumbaya is not a valid policy option, it is a f**king song. I do sincerely wish that the world were otherwise, for "'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished." :(

"What is scary is how limited your perspective is."

This is, unfortunately, true of everyone

.

Yes indeed, you are absolutely correct on that. You just restated my old saw in different terms:

"Where ya sit determines whatcha see."

Here, I offer you once again a pint of Guinness: it always makes seeing things take on a better light. :D

[Occhidiangela]

If I bought everything from Washington hook, line and sinker, I'd be taking a different tack. I is still in the dark, and trying to sort out the "that which makes sense" from "that which does not."

However, I watched a good man, President James Earl Carter, play the appeaser. I don't want to watch that again. Not now, not when the forces are assymetrical. In his day, two chess players faced one another across a board.

Now, one guy is playing golf and one is playing hockey. If ya aint playing the same game, then ya get "checked into the boards" on that 9 foot putt for par.

So, ya has to switch to lacrosse. New game, and it hurts sometimes, while at other times, it is poetry in motion.

Let's here it for poetry. :D

There once was a boy in Bagdad
An inquisitive sort of a lad
He wanted to see
If a sting had a bee
To his chagrin he found that it had!

Hmmmmmmm . . . I love limericks. :D

--Occhi--

[Freepaperclips]

I'd venture to say that until Islam has the sort of internal upheaval that Christianity had, and a similar "enlightenment" that fits the modern world somewhat, then I'd guess the prospects for an Islamic Republic that is also a "democracy" with free speech and freedom to dissent, and for that matter, freedom of worship, is a very long shot.

If you need proof it can be done, just look at the history of Qatar. Not only is it the most peaceful country in the area, it's one of the most prosperous and reasonable.

[Assur]

If you need proof it can be done, just look at the history of Qatar.&nbsp; Not only is it the most peaceful country in the area, it's one of the most prosperous and reasonable.

Hi

Just remember that the government changed when the present sheik staged a coup against his father. That does not bode well for the acceptance of peaceful/democratic change of government.

BTW The government of Qatar finances Al-Jazeera, a TV station which does not sem to be the favourite of the US!

good karma

[Occhidiangela]

Qatar may be more progressive than many other Arab nations, but it has a few things going for it.

Money from oil, which is not a bad thing.

The protection of a number of others.

I wonder how things will work out there over time, given that you are still dealing with a form of autocracy, with the ruling family model in place.

Again, I'd love to be proven completely wrong.

-- Occhi