Why is Syria on UN Counter-Terrorism Committee?

[adios]

COUNTER-TERRORISM COMMITTEE (CTC) (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1373/composition.html)

What is the rationale for this? Just their turn? Good to have a country that gives safe haven to terrorists so they can provide some insight (if that's the case Iran ought to be on this comittee)? Just wondering. To preempt brad, perhaps some feel that it's the same reason the US is on the committee <big sigh>.

[Boris]

Very good question Tom. The Syrians are probably responsible for 100 times the terrorist activities that Saddam sponsored. They were definitely behind the German nightclub bombing back in the '80s. Remember that bombing was the reason we bombed Libya. Another case of horrible US intelligence. Read below for more recent sleazeball activities by the FBI and terrorists.


By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - While President Clinton (news - web sites) was trying to broker an elusive peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the FBI (news - web sites) was secretly funneling money to suspected Hamas figures to see if the militant group would use it for terrorist attacks, according to interviews and court documents.
The counterterrorism operation in 1998 and 1999 was run out of the FBI's Phoenix office in cooperation with Israeli intelligence and was approved by Attorney General Janet Reno (news - web sites), FBI officials told The Associated Press.


Several thousand dollars in U.S. money was sent to suspected terror supporters during the operation as the FBI tried to track the flow of cash through terror organizations, the FBI said in a rare acknowledgment of an undercover sting that never resulted in prosecutions.


"This was done in conjunction with permission from the attorney general for an ongoing operation, and Israeli authorities were aware of it," the bureau said.


One of the FBI's key operatives, who has had a falling out with the bureau, provided an account of the operation at a friend's closed immigration court proceeding. AP obtained and reviewed the court documents.


Arizona businessman Harry Ellen testified he permitted the FBI to bug his home, car and office, allowed his Muslim foundation's activities in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites) to be monitored by agents, arranged a peace meeting between major Palestinian activists and gained personal access to Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) during more than four years of cooperation with the FBI.


Ellen's FBI handler in the late 1990s was Kenneth Williams, an agent who later became famous for writing a pre-Sept. 11 memo to FBI headquarters warning there were Arab pilots training at U.S. flight schools. The warning went unheeded.


Ellen, a Muslim convert, testified he was taking a trip to the Gaza Strip to bring doctors to the region in summer 1998 when Williams asked him to provide money to a Hamas figure.


Williams wanted "the transfer of American funds to some of the terrorist groups for violent purposes," Ellen testified to the immigration court in a closed June 2001 session.


At the same time, Clinton and his negotiators were trying to reinvigorate stalled Mideast peace talks, an effort that culminated in the Wye Accords in October 1998.


Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, said in an interview that the White House wasn't informed of the FBI activities. "We were not aware of any such operation," Berger said.


Ellen testified the operation ended abruptly in early 1999 when he and Williams had a series of disagreements over the operation, disputes that began when Ellen angered the FBI by having an affair with a Chinese woman suspected of espionage.


FBI officials said they tried to get Ellen to end the relationship and his work was terminated for failing to follow rules.


Melvin McDonald, the former U.S. attorney in Phoenix who has championed Ellen's cause, said the FBI's abrupt end to the investigation squandered an important intelligence opportunity.


"Harry had been a tremendous resource to the bureau," McDonald said. "We did not have that many people like him with connections like that to the Middle East."


Former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Dennis DeConcini, another Ellen supporter, said Ellen's work could have greatly assisted the FBI.


"I know some of the wonderful cases and sheer positives the FBI has done. But when it comes to spying and espionage they really screwed up, and I think Harry is one of those cases," the former Arizona senator said.





The Justice Department (news - web sites) inspector general is investigating some allegations that came to light in Ellen's case, including that FBI agents in sensitive probes moonlighted at private companies that were using FBI assets or investigative subjects to assist their personal interests.

Ellen, stepson of an Air Force intelligence officer, had worked for U.S. intelligence since the 1970s as an "asset," a private citizen paid to provide information or conduct specific tasks. His work started in Latin America and also involved China and the Middle East.

Ellen, whose step-grandfather was Jewish, converted to Islam in the 1980s and began helping poor Palestinians.

In 1994, he began assisting the FBI Phoenix office, which had become a hotbed of cases involving terrorism and intelligence because of a large, active Muslim population, the proximity to the U.S. southern border and a large concentration of aerospace companies.

Ellen testified that by 1996 his humanitarian work, monitored by the FBI, had won him unprecedented access to Muslim militants from groups fighting for Palestinian independence, including Hamas.

In a rare meeting Ellen organized, he testified, the major groups created an informal alliance to ensure safe passage to any foreigner providing humanitarian assistance. Ellen was named a spokesman and met several times with Arafat.

Ellen also created a foundation named al-Sadaqa to further his work by bringing sewing machines, eyeglasses and other assistance to Palestinians.

Impressed by the extraordinary access, Williams insisted the new foundation be funded in part by the FBI, Ellen testified.

In an interview, he said he agreed to help the FBI "not as a snitch but as a good American."

"I agreed to cooperate with the FBI in the facilitation of the peace process that would lead to an independent Palestinian state, stopping the half-century of violent and oppressive occupation," Ellen said.

"During that period of time I never did anything nor would I cooperate in any way to harm the Palestinian or Israeli people."

He testified that Williams provided him between $3,000 and $5,000 in the summer of 1998 and instructed him to give it to a Hamas figure named Ismail Abu Shanab, who was killed earlier this year by Israeli forces in retaliation for a Hamas terrorist strike.

"He (Williams) said they (the dollars) would be for terrorist activities," Ellen testified. Abu Shanab distributed the money to Palestinian orphanages and health care facilities, he said.

Ellen testified that Williams told him he hoped the transfer would lead to more money exchanges through terror groups but Ellen refused to earmark money for terrorism. He testified he later learned another FBI operative had offered Hamas and Palestinian figures larger amounts for terrorist attacks.

The court testimony shows Ellen allowed his home, office and car in Arizona to be bugged so the FBI could listen, without a warrant, to visiting Palestinians or Americans if they discussed illegal activity.

The FBI said it commonly uses such recordings. "Consensual monitoring does not require a warrant. In cases where the FBI conducts consensual monitoring, the one party is aware he is being recorded," it said.

One of those to visit Ellen in Arizona was Palestinian Gen. Mahmoud Abu Marzouq, an Arafat ally who oversaw Palestinian civil defense. Marzouq became involved with Ellen's foundation and later wrote a letter praising him.

"The United States will, in my opinion, lose a valuable opportunity for communication in the Middle East if Abu Yusef (Ellen's Muslim name) is further restricted from his honorable efforts for the part of the widows, orphans and handicapped and the elderly in Palestine," Marzouq wrote.

[Cyrus]

Spain chairs the Committee : the country has the longest history among European nations for state-sponsored torture and humans rights abuses.

Angola and Mexico are vice-chairmen, and they are both in the list of Amnesty International as countries with persistent and extreme histories of state-sponsored human rights abuses and torture. Russia also vice-chairs -- no comment.

Among the "Other Members of the Committee" you will find these notables:

Chile
Pakistan
China
All countries with illustrious histories of state-sponsored terror of extreme brutality directed at their citizens.

I noticed also that South Africa has appointed a few "experts", as individuals, on the Committee, also. I guess these gentlemen are what one calls "relics of the past".

[nicky g]

There was an interesting article by Seymour Hersh in a recent New Yorker about the Syrians providing the US with detailed intelligence on al-Qaeda until Rumsfeld and pals had it shut down because of their distaste for Hizb'allah etc. Thought you might find it interesting.

To answer your question: maybe for the same reason the US... oh wait, you got their first. /images/graemlins/grin.gif To put it in context though: Boris mentions the Berlin nightclub bombing. I'd not heard about Syrian involvement in that; but I do remember a CIA-sponsored bomb exploding in Beirut around the same time in an attempt to kill a senior Shia cleric. It killed 80 bystanders (and missed its target).

[MMMMMM]

More evidence the UN is rotten to the core and not worth the rent.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, Syria needs to be regime-changed soon, and we need a 40-Division Army.

I suggest we decriminalize all drugs and divert those immense wasted resources (now engaged in the laughable "War On Drugs") to the creation of an Army capable of occupying 5 Middle Eastern countries simultaneously, while remaining battle-ready if needed on other fronts.

North Korea can be occupied and reformed by the South Koreans themselves after we take out the North Korean missiles and artillery with a real Shock and Awe campaign.

[Ray Zee]

m, you are just not going to get elected on that platform.
but you are getting more liberal with your drug stance. so maybe there is hope for you yet.
there should have been no north south korea. i remember lots of us dead over that place once already. why every stinkin time we go fight somewhere, we have to do a half baked job and find ourselves in a worse spot years later.

[ChipWrecked]

I dunno, but it's probably the same reason that Libya heads the human-rights committee.

[MMMMMM]

"why every stinkin time we go fight somewhere, we have to do a half baked job and find ourselves in a worse spot years later."

Probably because we are too nice and thoughtful. If we had done whatever it took to truly defeat them, we probably wouldn't be having these problems today.

We did what it took with Germany and Japan, during and after the war. But that involved massive occupation, laying down the law, and complete restructuring. Our goal should not be to leave Iraq but to totally transform it as we did Germany and Japan. And I defy anybody to claim the people of Germany and Japan are not today much better for it. Of course we'll hear the howls from the liberals and the Chris Algers saying who are we to impose our way of life on others. We'll also hear the andyfox's saying that we are full of hubris and who are we to say what way of life is better. But the fact that we did these things in the cases of Germany and Japan is a blessing both to those people and to the world. And if "our way of life" means a Democratic Republic with a Constitution that protects individual rights, that is something all humanity deserves, over Fascism, Theocracy, or Communism. Saying so isn't hubris, it's just acknowledging reality.

Also, as crazy as it might sound, if we actually took over countries we defeated we would probably not be having the problems you mention either. Why should Iraq be for the Iraqis, they would be far better off being U.S. citizens anyway. And since they would then be entitled to welfare and food stamps and all manner of government support, the Democrats could garner another huge bloc of votes. I'm not saying we should necessarily take them over but wouldn't everyone be better off if we did. We'd get the oil and they'd get rich compared to how they live now. In fact if there was a referendum in Iraq, offering them the chance to become the 51st State, they'd be proud fools not to take it.

[Chris Alger]

I know this is an outrageous, ridiculous question, but does anyone know of any evidence suggesting that a single suicide bomber has ever received "training" in Syria? To put it bluntly, why would a suicide bomber from Jenin need to make a 200-mile round trip to a training camp outside Damascus in order to learn how to pull a string?

[Chris Alger]

"Of course we'll hear the howls from the liberals and the Chris Algers saying who are we to impose our way of life on others."

Of course we'll see M, with characteristic honesty, claiming that my basic objection is that the US imposes "its way of life" on poor countries -- liberty, affluence, etc. -- instead of installing and maintaining regimes that are no better and often worse than those they replace.

[MMMMMM]

I didn't say that would be your basic objection, but I did anticipate the howl.

[andyfox]

I agree: why indeed should Iraq be for Iraqis? or France for the French? or Russia for the Russians? Surely "everyone would be better off" if they became the 51st, 52nd and 53rd states. But those "proud fools" would probably reject statehood.

We are full of hubris and who are we to say what way of life is better.

[MMMMMM]

andy, can you, personally, really not say that a Democratic Constitutional Republic is better than any of the following:

1) a Fascist state

2) a Nazi state

3) a Communist state

4) a Theocracy

???

Are you actually unable to discern which is better, or just so afraid of any aspect of hubris that you cannot acknowledge the obvious truth.

Hey, the Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson is calling for America to send the 82nd Airborne into Iran to dethrone the mullahs. I suppose you think it's fine if he suggests it, but it's not fine if an American suggests it.

Don't you going to realize that truth is truth regardless of whose mouth it comes out of?

Do you think it's merely hubris to say that our system is better than Soviet-era Stalinism, or would you be willing to acknowledge that at least as a fact? And if you acknowledge that as a fact, you must allow that some such statements can actually be made without hubris. So where do you draw the line and say it is fact or it is hubris? A blanket policy against anything even resembling hubris will necessarily exclude many facts and conclusions from your consideration--not exactly a logical approach to analysis, that.

andy, you are an intelligent, educated, well-read, compassionate human being and probably someone I would be happy to call a friend in real life. But you should practice analyzing and comparing with your intellect not with your emotions--as an exercise you should strive keep your emotions out of the analytical part, although allowing your emotions to influence the goals or the premises is fine. But the analysis part must be compartmentalized and kept as pure as possible, i.e., purely intellectual.

It isn't always hubris to say that certain things are better than others even if those things happen to be our ways. They can become others' ways, too, and wherever the way of Democratic Constiututional Republics are adopted, the people are the better for it. Isn't this obvious? Why does something being "our way" nearly blind you to the facts and make you fear hubris to the point of ignoring the obvious truths?

Also, such blinding or irrational exclusion, is actually a form of diminishing the human rights and worth of those who are suffering under totalitarian systems--all because you (and some others) are afraid to unequivocally state that democracy is better than totalitarianism. If enough people take such an apathetic attitude out of fear (in your case, an overblown fear of hubris), that is more iron shackles those regimes will be able to impose thir own citizens. When people don't stand up enough for human rights and freedoms, others pay with their lives, and tyrants flourish.

[andyfox]

I believe our way of government is better than what the government had been in Iraq prior to our occupation, or what they have in Iran now, or what Stalin's government in the USSR was.

I question the assumption that we can right every wrong in the world, that we know what's better for others all the time. I question the assumption that when we go in somewhere, we know what we're doing and that things end up better for the people all the time. There are too many examples in my lifetime of just the opposite: we go in and things end up worse for the people. The people of Vietnam, Chile, and Guatemala, to name just three, would have been far, far better off had we not had the hubris to decide that we knew better than they did how to run their country. In fact we knew very little of the history and culture of those countries and made a mess of them.

I see nothing in the resumes of Bush, Cheney, Rice et al to give me any confidence that they will not make a mess of things now. I hope I am wrong.

I question the assumption that because you say a government has no right to exist, we should therefore expand our military and go in and depose that government. In the case of the three countries I listed above, and Iraq now, our government lied about why they went in.

How does Khomeni's grandson calling for us to invade mean that he is speaking the truth? He can suggest anything he wants, so can you.

The hubris comes from us acting as if the world is simply our stage and all the other actors must do as we say or suffer the consequences. This is the truth of our foreign policy today.

[ACPlayer]

A fanatical democrat (like yourself) suggesting that another people (like the Iranians) adopt your viewpoint is just as objectionable as a fanatical mullah (like an Iranian) suggesting that another people (like yourself) adopt his/her viewpoint.

If change is to come to Iran, Russia, China, etc it will do so under its own direction, ensuring a more lasting change. For the Ayatollah to advocate change within his own country is just as acceptable as my advocating change within this country.

Bush had it right before the election when he clearly stated that he was against Nation Building.

Republicans had it right when they criticized Clinton for nation building and overseas adventurism

Bush has put aside logic and is using emotions and fears to drive his thinking.

We should be building our nation.

[Chris Alger]

The problem is that you wouldn't know a "Democratic Constitutional Republic" if it bit you in the ass.

Two weeks ago, for example, the US dictatorship in Iraq adopted as law what The Economist (http://www.economist.com/World/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2092719) calls a "wish-list that foreign investors and donor agencies dream of for developing markets." Key ingredients: "Investors in any field, except for all-important oil production and refining, would be allowed 100% ownership of Iraqi assets, full repatriation of profits, and equal legal standing with local firms. Foreign banks would be welcome to set up shop immediately, or buy into Iraqi ventures. Income and corporate taxes would be capped at 15%. Tariffs would be slashed to a universal 5% rate, with none imposed on food, drugs, books and other 'humanitarian' imports.'" The new imposed laws "would immediately make Iraq's economy one of the most open to trade and capital flows in the world, and put it among the lowest taxed in the world, rich or poor." NYT, 10/2/3.

The radical reforms were adopted without any constitution, elected representatives, right to vote, or even the facade of public input, much less representative democracy. As usual, they were dictated by the interests of Western, mostly US capital. Never mind if the reforms will "probably ruin many producers and exacerbate unemployment," according to Dr. Fadhil Mahdi, regional program manager for the United Nations Development Program. (NY Times) Never mind that such reforms preclude even the possibility of the social safety nets that other oil producers enjoy. Never mind if Iraqis, millions of which live on the edge of survival already, literally starve. The important thing is to make the wallets of American investors as fat as they can be without the slightest regard for what Iraqis want.

After all, if you're going to kill 8,000 civilians and spend tens of billions to put the country you runied back together, you might as well make sure that the people that matter most get the most. You can always label it a "Democratic Constitutional Republic" and get the right-wing suckers to believe you.

[MMMMMM]

"A fanatical democrat (like yourself) suggesting that another people (like the Iranians) adopt your viewpoint is just as objectionable as a fanatical mullah (like an Iranian) suggesting that another people (like yourself) adopt his/her viewpoint."

Sorry ACPlayer, that sort of thing may be true when it comes to, say, preferring roses over violets, but not when preferring tyranny over freedom. Thanks for the inappropriate analogy though. Not to mention the fact that the Iranian people ARE adopting my viewpoint in great numbers, but the mullahs insist on maintaining their totalitarian grasp through brutality. Apparently you have managed to confuse the absolute authority wielded by a group of religious fanatics, with the will of the Iranian people. Iran is ripe for revolution, so the mullah's iron-fisted rule is not representative of the Iranian people, hence your analogy is way off base. Not that that should surprise me, I guess.

"If change is to come to Iran, Russia, China, etc it will do so under its own direction, ensuring a more lasting change. For the Ayatollah to advocate change within his own country is just as acceptable as my advocating change within this country."

Nice, just give tyrants a free hand, and don't forget that a small group of armed thugs can totally supress a much larger unarmed population. Such a thing couyld conceivably continue indefinitely without outside interference or a change in underlying conditions. Congratulations on your support of the right to thuggery. Also since you are anti-gun don't forget that a relatively small group of armed people in this country could conceivably suppress the entire rest of the population if the populace were fully disarmed.

[MMMMMM]

No problems with this post of yours, andy, you elucidated some valid concerns, and please just take my post to mean that I think you are carrying the fear of hubris a bit too far.

[adios]

Regarding your response to ACPlayer, IMO you're absolutely right. For instance the Iraqi people had no control over their future with Hussein in power. As far as hubris is concerned the issue is whether or not countries that support terrorism are a threat to our borders and our lives. I guess we'll need at least 2 more 9/11 type incidents to convince people that the US is indeed threatened.

[MMMMMM]

Well before they do anything legally they must first have a Constitution drawn up. I suggest they use ours for a model, although taking it nearly word for word would probably be a better idea.

How's that for hubris? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Also if you could tell me which publicly-held US companies you think would be most likely to benefit (besides Halliburton and subsidiaries, of course) I would appreciate it. Investing in those companies might be a great idea now especially since everyone seems to think we're going to be bogged down there for a long time yet to come. My own suspicion is that we will assert greater control and become unbogged somwhat sooner than most would anticipate.

And by the way if Iraq could use outside investments to get the prosperity ball rolling, then reducing tariffs and trade barriers is a great idea for the Iraqi people too.

[ACPlayer]

I guess we disagree.

The will of the Iranian (replace country of your choice)people will come out. If we meddle we will continue to make enemies (as we have consistently done with our meddling the middleeast).

We meddled in Iran before and the Iranians got the SAVAK. Iranians remember that.

We are meddling in Iraq and people will remember that, when we install the next puppetship.

We are meddling in Afghanistan and getting no where.

We support the Saudi's and their citizens fly planes into tall buildings.

We support the Egyptians and foster the likes of Al Zawahiri.

You cant see further than the tip of your nose.

[ACPlayer]

Unless we start dealing with the real issues, we will get more attacks. We are not dealing with the issues.

[MMMMMM]

"The will of the Iranian (replace country of your choice)people will come out."

Sure, sort of like the will of the Chinese people came out in Tiananmen Square, eh, ACPlayer?

[MMMMMM]

Right, ACPlayer, we are not dealing with the real issues. The real issues are states sponsoring and harboring terrorists. Terrorists do not train and receive supplies in a vacuum. The USA and Israel need to deal with these real issues by simultaneously bombing every single terrorist training camp in the entire Middle East, for starters. If they would still strike at us then that would mean we didn't go far enough and the regimes themselves will need to be disarmed.

[ACPlayer]

Believe it or not China is changing and for the better. More free markets etc. Tianamen was just one step.

[ACPlayer]

LOL. Like Israel has succeeded in getting secure despite a fanatically attack on Palestinians.!

Terrorists do not train and receive supplies in a vacuum.

Try "terrorists are not created in a vacuum"

I guess that is going to be your excuse to trot out the vastly misunderstood House of Peace, House of War you brought out before. Of course if you are to accept that logic, you would end up having to not only take out the camps but every single muslim country, if not person, and make it a state in the republic of USA.

[andyfox]

"they must first have a Constitution drawn up. I suggest they use ours for a model, although taking it nearly word for word would probably be a better idea."

When Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam's independence from France in 1945, he took your advice (or, that is, the advice you would have given him) and quoted verbatim from the Declaration of Independence. He then pleaded for help and advice from the American government, having befriended Americans in the OSS, the predecessor of the CIA.

We never answered his requests. We were more interested in making sure our friend the French were not bothered with such things when there were more pressing concerns in Europe. We then later assumed, with our usual hubris, that those little yellow men in pajamas that he led would not be able to stand up to us.

Ancient history? Maybe. But variants of the same story can be told about many other people and places where we acted, and continue to act with hubris to this day.

[andyfox]

President Bush took time to assess 9/11. Despite calls from many in Congress for immediate retribution, the administration took time to determine who was responsible and then what should be done. It was determined that Al Qaeda was reponsible and that Al Aqeda was being given aid, shelter and comfort by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was attacked and the Taliban routed.

The case that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, or that, left in power, he would be responsible for "at least two more 9/11 type incidents" is weak at best.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
North Korea can be occupied and reformed by the South Koreans themselves after we take out the North Korean missiles and artillery with a real Shock and Awe campaign.


[/ QUOTE ]

Considering what the north has stacked on its boarder, the shock and awe campaign would need to include nukes. When it was complete, there would be nothing left for the south to occuppy or reform.

Stu

[Chris Alger]

"Well before they do anything legally...."

You don't seem to get it. The new investment rules, announced by the US-appointed "Iraqi" Finance Minister at an IMF meeting last week, have been "approved" by L. Paul Bremer, they are, according to the Times, "the new laws," enforced at gunpoint by the U.S. Since there's no assembly, no elections, no right to vote, Iraqis have the choice of either (1) passively accepting the US-imposed "law" or (2) taking up arms, which the Americans have already declared is "terrorism."

Your enthusiasm in making a quick buck from the Iraqi war and dictatorship reveals just how hollow and absurd all your pronouncements about democracy and freedom really are. Why don't you just rob a bank or mug a senior citizen and leave the Iraqis alone?

[brad]

notice that ww2 was a declared war and rest of crap like korea were 'UN peacekeeping'

[brad]

you realize all the politicians talk about is new world order and global government (governance).

things like kyoto we americans basically paying taxes to chinese. (or via UN to chinese)

[brad]

''least 2 more 9/11 type incidents to convince people that the US is indeed threatened. '

btw, pilots still not armed, cockpit doors still (i think) not secured, and borders are even more wide open than pre 911.

think about who benefits from a totalitarian system and one could come about here in US.

[ACPlayer]

Yup, and we could use some of those billions going into productive activities in Iraq to pay for those, securing ports, better tracking of visitors to the country, not to mention little things like healthcare.

[MMMMMM]

Here is an article written by former CIA Director James Woolsey and Tom McInerney, first published in The Wall Street Journal.


(excerpt)

"How To Defeat North Korea"

(snip background information about dangerous recent developments in North Korea and related political matters)

"Unfortunately, the reflexive rejection in the public debate of the use of force against North Korea has begun to undermine U.S. ability both to influence China to act and to take the preparatory steps necessary for effectiveness if force should be needed. The U.S. and South Korea must instead come together and begin to assess realistically what it would take to conduct a successful military operation to change the North Korean regime.

It is not reasonable to limit the use of force to a surgical strike destroying Yongbyon. Although the facility would need to be destroyed, the possible existence of another plutonium reprocessing plant or of uranium-enrichment facilities, or of plutonium hidden elsewhere, makes it infeasible to limit the use of force to such a single objective. Moreover, military action against North Korea must protect South Korea from certain attack (particularly from artillery just north of the DMZ that can reach Seoul). In short, we must be prepared to win a war, not execute a strike.

U.S. and South Korean forces have spent nearly half a century preparing to fight and win such a war. We should not be intimidated by North Korea's much-discussed artillery. Around half of North Korea's 11,000-plus artillery pieces, some of them in caves, are in position to fire on Seoul. But all are vulnerable to stealth and precision weapons--e.g., caves can be sealed by accurate munitions.

Massive air power is the key to being able both to destroy Yongbyon and to protect South Korea from attack by missile or artillery. There is a significant number of hardened air bases available in South Korea and the South Koreans have an excellent air force of approximately 550 modern tactical aircraft. The U.S. should begin planning immediately to deploy the Patriot tactical ballistic missile defense system plus Aegis ships to South Korea and Japan, and also to reinforce our tactical air forces by moving in several air wings and aircraft carrier battle groups, together with the all-important surveillance aircraft and drones.

The goal of the planning should be to be prepared on short notice both to destroy the nuclear capabilities at Yongbyon and other key North Korean facilities and to protect South Korea against attack by destroying North Korean artillery and missile sites. Our stealth aircraft, equipped with precision bombs, and cruise missiles will be crucial--these weapons can be tailored to incinerate the WMD and minimize radiation leakage.

The key point is that the base infrastructure available in the region and the accessibility of North Korea from the sea should make it possible to generate around 4,000 sorties a day compared to the 800 a day that were so effective in Iraq. When one contemplates that the vast majority of these sorties would use precision munitions, and that surveillance aircraft would permit immediate targeting of artillery pieces and ballistic missile launch sites, we believe the use of air power in such a war would be swifter and more devastating than it was in Iraq. North Korea's geriatric air defenses--both fighter aircraft and missiles--would not last long. As the Iraqis understood when facing our air power, if you fly, you die.

Marine forces deployed off both coasts of North Korea could put both Pyongyang and Wonson at risk of rapid seizure, particularly given the fact that most of North Korea's armed forces are situated along the DMZ. With over 20 of the Army's 33 combat brigades now committed it would be necessary to call up additional Reserve and National Guard units. However, the U.S. forces that would have the greatest immediate effect are Expeditionary Air Forces and Carrier Battle Groups, most of which have now been removed from the Iraqi theater.


The South Korean Army is well equipped to handle a counteroffensive into North Korea with help from perhaps two additional U.S. Army divisions, together with the above-mentioned Marine Expeditionary Force and dominant air power. We judge that the U.S. and South Korea could defeat North Korea decisively in 30 to 60 days with such a strategy. Importantly, there is "no doubt on the outcome" as the chairman of the JCS, Gen. Meyers, said at his reconfirmation hearing on July 26 to the Senate.
We are not eager to see force used on the Korean peninsula. It is better to resolve this crisis without war. However, unless China succeeds in ending North Korea's nuclear weapons development--and we believe this will require a change in regime--Americans will be left with the threat to our existence described by Secretary Perry when he recently said that the North Korean nuclear program "poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities.

We can hate it that we are forced now to confront this choice. But we should not take refuge in denial."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Woolsey was CIA director from 1993-95. Gen. McInerney, a retired three-star Air Force lieutenant general and former assistant vice chief of staff, is a Fox News military analyst. (end excerpt)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9224

[MMMMMM]

True, and more evidence that the U.N. is worse than useless.

[MMMMMM]

Aren't the "new laws" temporary until a Constitution is drawn up?

Investment typically benefits both parties. However I do understand that leftists generally disdain anything to do with investment, profit, growth, etc. and often seem to think that such things only benefit one party. That view however betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of economic principles.

[MMMMMM]

More free markets and more Internet Police Units to crack down on dissidents. And Tiananmen Square was actually a step backwards as the repression intensified after the incident.

[MMMMMM]

What I meant was that terrorists do not train and store weapons on a large scale without a state allowing them to do so.

To go after the terrorists, we have to go after the states that sponsor and support them and which allow them to operate training camps.

The primary reason the Palestinians are still attacking is that Israel has exhibited so much restraint. Likewise if Israel had kicked the nearby Arab states' teeth in during the wars, and had kept the territory won instead of withdrawing and giving back most of it back, those states today would probably not be harboring and sponsoring terrorist armies such as Hezbollah. The primary reason such terrorist armies exist today is because they and their sponsors have been allowed to exist, and carry on their nefarious activities, by an overly soft, divided and weak-willed West.

Believe me, if the US and Israel totally bombed all the terrorist training camps in the Middle East into oblivion, we would hear a lot of howling but not much attacking for a long time to come. Hezbollah exists and shouts "Death To America!" because it hasn't been bombed into oblivion. They get away with whatever they are allowed to get away with and Clinton's laughable responses to the terrorist attacks is one reason the terrorists became so emboldened against us.

[ACPlayer]

And what I said was that we create terrorists by these meddling foreign policies.

To take the Islamic analogy, if we divide the world into friend or foe then the foe has no choice but to take up arms and try to retaliate by any means possible. if instead we understood the concept of dar al Ahd (house of the covenant) we would realize that we can live in peace with Islam.

There is a direct, and anticipatable, correlation between Iran and N. Korea accelarating any efforts for Nuclear weapons and Bush's dumb remarks about axis of evil.

We have brought the terrorism on ourselves with a series of short sighted foreign policy deciions over the past 50 years. We MAY be able to suppress it for a short period by war, but will only create even more fundamentalist problems.

The Iraq/Afghanistan lesson is becoming clear. We cannot bring democracy to these countries by force.

I re-assert my statement that we must let them run their affairs. Continue to build a model that the populace in the other countries admires and wishes to emulate rather than a model they hate. Then change can come from within.

History is replete with failed civilizations due to their adventurism.

[ACPlayer]

The repression intensified for a short period of time. Compared to 20 years ago, China is a better society. With more access to western products, more consumerism and the glimmers of a real middle class. The trend will continue,and will result in lasting change. Our willingness to trade with them over the objections of the Human Rights groups has helped China move forward.

I was in Hong Kong and Guangdong province in the late 90's. There is plenty of commerce.

[MMMMMM]

The assertion that we bring the terrorism on ourselves is largely baseless. It is too bad you have so little idea what you are talking about.

"Of the 30 wars in the world today (this was written about two years ago I think), 28 involve Muslims against someone else." Just how does that fit in with your little world view?

You do not realize that Islam is fundamentally aggressive and domineering towards every other belief system. Your idea of a covenant and Islam's idea of a covenant are probably shockingly different. And I for one am not willing to explain such things further to you because it would obviously be a wasted effort.

[MMMMMM]

Plenty of commerce and plenty of repression. How would you like to be thrown in jail for suggesting democracy on an internet forum, for instance?

I'm tired of arguing with nitwits.

[ACPlayer]

So, is this now a war on Islam?

[ACPlayer]

So, should we stop trading with this horrible govt too. We have been sold that MFN will help open China and make it better for the people there. Seems like that has been a failure.

Your arrogance knows absolutely no bounds.

[MMMMMM]

It is hard for me to imagine that anyone could be as dense as you unless they really, really worked at it. No, it isn't a war on Islam, even though Islam long ago declared ideological war on every other religion on the face of the Earth.

[MMMMMM]

Why should we stop trading with them just because they are a horrible government? Trade benefits everyone, even their oppressed citizens. And why would you say "So, we should stop trading with them..." - as if my post somehow implied that?

Perhaps you are mistaking my exasperation for arrogance. Or perhaps I eventually succumb to both when faced with what I see as repetitive denseness of no small degree. I actually don't think you are stupid, but the degree of denseness is rather overwhelming, so much so as to make me almost suspect you are doing it deliberately or something.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
We judge that the U.S. and South Korea could defeat North Korea decisively in 30 to 60 days with such a strategy. Importantly, there is "no doubt on the outcome" as the chairman of the JCS, Gen. Meyers, said at his reconfirmation hearing on July 26 to the Senate.


[/ QUOTE ]


I read somewhere that every fourth artillary round that North Korea has aimed at south Korea is chem/bio. Even at 4000 sorties a day, it would be extremely difficult to protect Seoul from a chem/bio attack using just conventional forces. South Korea would have to sincerely believe they would come through the conflict relatively unscathed before they would be willing to understake such an endeavor.

One way or another, we need to stop the North Koreans from building a nuclear arsenal.

Stu

[ACPlayer]

Well, your whole argument appears to be:

"I am right,you are wrong and if you dont agree with me you are stupid". Shades of Rush - I must be right because every one says I am wrong.

The one piece of relevant information you provide is that you believe that Islam is violent religion and it is impossible for non-muslims to co-exist peacefully with them on this planet. This statement drives your entire hatred for Islam. I dont believe you are correct in your belief.

Your attack on Islam is clearly baseless. Your views on possible success of US adventurism is not based on any historical knowledge or precedent (in fact our track record is poorer than Bush's grades in college).

So, perhaps your emotion is exasperation, I think you are basing your arguments from some deep seated fear. Your almost maniacal desire to kill even if involves innocent people, is almost immoral. Or perhaps you just enjoy fighting.

[MMMMMM]

I don't know the risks and I don't know how much damage South Korea would take under Woolsey's scenario. I agree with your statement regarding stopping the North from building a nuclear arsenal, but they are already building it. They might have 6 nukes now but in a year they might have 60 nukes. So we better figure something out pretty damn fast. Also it is impossible to trust them or to conduct intrusive enough inspections to be sure that they would be complying with any agreed upon framework.

[MMMMMM]

No, ACPlayer, my statements are not baseless but some of them (such as regarding Islam) would take a book or more to prove. And even then many would not accept the proof. I haven't read over 50 books on various religions for nothing and I don't think I formed greatly mistaken opinions from so doing.

[Chris Alger]

"Aren't the "new laws" temporary until a Constitution is drawn up?"

Yeah, then after we write the constitution and stage an election to ratify it, they'll be permanent. As if that makes a difference. The point is to sell off as much of Iraq as possible (except for our oil) as a fait accompli.

Of course investment benefits "both parties." The parties are going to be a tiny US-backed local elite and the transnational corporations. But it won't do the 23 million Iraqi non-parties much good.

[brad]

why was there sanctions and boycott on south africa then?

fwiw i think its horrible that US has open trade which pits US workers against slave workers.

i mean its good for the slave masters, but ...

[brad]

arent there like a billion indonestions or something most of which are muslim?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
....reforms will "probably ruin many producers and exacerbate unemployment," according to Dr. Fadhil Mahdi, regional program manager for the United Nations Development Program. (NY Times) Never mind that such reforms preclude even the possibility of the social safety nets that other oil producers enjoy. Never mind if Iraqis, millions of which live on the edge of survival already, literally starve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foriegn investment creates jobs in an economy. For instance, if Toyota wanted to build a car factory in my city, I would welcome it. Perhaps my neighbor would get a job at that factory, earn a pay check, feed his kids, and pay me back the $100 he borrowed from me last year.

Come on Chris, your smarter than this.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw i think its horrible that US has open trade which pits US workers against slave workers.


[/ QUOTE ]

What would truely be horrible is if we took actions that caused these slave workers to lose their jobs. In those countries losing a job can be a death sentance for the slave worker and their family. At least in the US we have social safety nets like unemployment benes, welfare, etc.

Of course we could provide each displaced slave worker a few pennies a day in humanitarian aid. That would effectively be paying these "slaves" to do nothing. It fits perfectly in our grand design of keeping our country Rich and third world "slave" countrys poor by stifling economic activity in those countries.

Stu

[ACPlayer]

Well, lets see how one's predispositions can impact readings.

If I read Jason Goodwin's excellent book on the history of the Ottomans, I see for the most part rulers who looked after their non-muslim populations. Mostly be seperating them and very limited night time activities permitted. The ottoman's were clever warriors and successful but that was not to spread the religtion but to conquer lands. In fact for a while they did not want to convert non-muslims (for purely selfish reasons that any capitalist would love: to maintain revenues from the non-muslims).

When you read the same book, you probably focussed on the fact that they were levying taxes on the non-muslims and that initiated the house of peace and house of war concept (which is actually not in the Quran but an interpretation).

So, I suppose even when reading books ones prejudices show up.

[brad]

look at argentina as model

[brad]

another liberal looking 2 save the world/?

[Gamblor]

Yeah, then after we write the constitution and stage an election to ratify it, they'll be permanent. As if that makes a difference. The point is to sell off as much of Iraq as possible (except for our oil) as a fait accompli.

Wow it's a good thing you sit in on Bush's meetings with his top advisors or I'd never have known that he was so evil.

Oh wait, that's right you impose your principles and ethics on your interpretation of the actions of others.

Of course investment benefits "both parties." The parties are going to be a tiny US-backed local elite and the transnational corporations. But it won't do the 23 million Iraqi non-parties much good.

Other than give them jobs outside the "camel dung cleanup" industry, and provide them with a range of goods they would have never known (like soap)

[John Cole]

Tom,

You might wonder even a bit more after the bombing in Israel a few weeks ago, the one in which four cars full of explosives were parked in front of a building. This is certainly the old Syrian M.O.

[nicky g]

"Other than give them jobs outside the "camel dung cleanup" industry, and provide them with a range of goods they would have never known (like soap)"

More overt racism. Or is this just another cultural characteristic?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
look at argentina as model

[/ QUOTE ]

Argentina's economic woes stemmed from a piss poor monetary policy and not from low tarriffs or incentives to drive foreign investment.

Stu

[nicky g]

According to Joseph Stiglitz, Argentina's woes were caused by liberalised capital markets that allowed investors' money to be pulled out instantaneously at the first sign of trouble, which is what duly happened.

[MMMMMM]

So you consider Muslims levying taxes which MUST be paid OR ELSE, on non-Muslim populations, to be "looking after" those populations?

How about if the USA were a purely Christian government and it imposed a poll tax yearly on all non-Christians which amounted to, say, half of all their disposable income? And in every country the Christians expanded to, they did the same thing? And that, in addition, the so-called "protected populations" were only truly being "protected" from the "protectors" themselves? Sounds exactly like a protection racket, backed by the full force of law, doesn't it? Are you also aware that the so-called "protected populations" had fewer civil and religious rights than Muslims, even after paying the mandatory and extortionate jizya (poll tax)?

[MMMMMM]

Even if so (and I have no idea), were they worse off than if there had been no investment in the first place?

[adios]

An article by Joseph Stiglitz regarding Argentina's economic woes:

Lessons from Argentina (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?xml=0&catkey=1836347985&art_id=2039658 019&sType=1)

ARGENTINA'S collapse incited the largest default in history. Pundits agree this is merely the latest in a string of IMF-led bailouts that squandered billions of dollars and failed to save the economies they were meant to help.

The nature of that failure, however, is disputed. Some claim that the IMF was too lenient; others that it was too tough. Those who blame the IMF see the problem as self-inflicted through profligate and corrupt spending by Argentina. Such attempts at blame-shifting are misguided: one can understand the default as the consequence of economic mistakes made over a decade. Understanding what went wrong provides important lessons for the future.

The problems began with the hyperinflation of the 1980s. To slash inflation, expectations needed to be changed; ``anchoring'' the currency to the dollar was supposed to do this. If inflation continued, the country's real exchange rate would appreciate, the demand for its exports would fall, unemployment would increase, and that would dampen wage and price pressures.

Market participants would realise that inflation would not be sustained. So long as the commitment to the exchange rate system remained credible, so was the commitment to halt inflation. If inflationary expectations were changed, then disinflation could occur without the costly unemployment.

The IMF encouraged this exchange rate system. Now they are less enthusiastic, though Argentina, not the IMF, is paying the price. The peg did lower inflation; but it did not promote sustained growth. Argentina should have been encouraged to fix a more flexible exchange rate system, or at least an exchange rate more reflective of the country's trading patterns.

Other mistakes also occurred. Argentina was praised for allowing large foreign ownership of banks. For a while this created a seemingly more stable banking system, but that system failed to lend to small and medium sized firms. After the burst of growth that arrived with hyperinflation's end, growth slowed, partly because firms couldn't get adequate finance.

East Asia's crisis of 1997 provided the first hit. Partly because of IMF mismanagement, this became a global financial crisis, raising interest rates for all emerging markets including Argentina. Argentina's exchange rate system survived, but at a heavy price – the onset of double-digit unemployment.

Soon, high interest rates strained the country's budget. Yet Argentina's debt to GDP ratio – even as it began to collapse – remained moderate, at around 45 per cent, lower than Japan's. But with 20 per cent interest rates, 9 per cent of the country's GDP would be spent annually on financing its debt. The government pursued fiscal austerity, but not enough to make up for the vagaries of the market.

The global financial crisis that followed East Asia's crisis set off a series of big exchange rate adjustments. The dollar, to which Argentina's peso was tied, increased sharply in value.

Meanwhile, Argentina's neighbour and Mercosur trading partner, Brazil, saw its currency depreciate – some say that it became significantly undervalued.Wages and prices fell, but not enough to allow Argentina to compete effectively, especially since many of the agricultural goods which constitute Argentina's natural comparative advantages face high hurdles in entering the markets of rich countries.

Hardly had the world recovered from the 1997-1998 financial crisis when it slid into the 2000/2001 global slowdown, worsening Argentina's situation. Here the IMF made its fatal mistake. It encouraged a contractionary fiscal policy, the same mistake it had made in East Asia,and with the same disastrous consequence. Fiscal austerity was supposed to restore confidence.

But the numbers in the IMF program were fiction; any economist would have predicted that contractionary policies incite slowdown, and that budget targets would not be met. Needless to say, the IMF program did not fulfil its commitments. Confidence is seldom restored as an economy goes into a deep recession and double-digit unemployment.

Perhaps a military dictator, like Chile's Pinochet, could suppress the social and political unrest that arises in such conditions. But in Argentina's democracy, this was impossible. Seven lessons must now be drawn:

1. In a world of volatile exchange rates, pegging a currency to one like the dollar is highly risky. Argentina should have been encouraged to move off its exchange rate system years ago.

2. Globalisation exposes a country to enormous shocks. Countries must cope with those shocks – adjustments in exchange rates are part of the coping mechanism.

3. You ignore social and political contexts at your peril. Any government that follows policies which leave large fractions of the population unemployed or underemployed is failing in its primary mission.

4. A single-minded focus on inflation – without a concern for unemployment or growth – is risky.

5. Growth requires financial institutions that lend to domestic firms. Selling banks to foreign owners, without creating appropriate safeguards, may impede growth and stability.

6. One seldom restores economic strength – or confidence – with policies that force an economy into a deep recession. For insisting on contractionary policies, the IMF bears its great culpability.

7. Better ways are needed to deal with situations akin to Argentina. I argued for this during East Asia's crisis; the IMF argued against me, preferring its big-bail-out strategy. Now the IMF belatedly recognises that it should explore alternatives.

The IMF will work hard to shift blame – there will be allegations of corruption, and it will be said that Argentina did not pursue needed measures. Of course, the country needed to undertake other reforms – but following the IMF's advice regarding contractionary fiscal policies made matters worse. Argentina's crisis should remind us of the pressing need to reform the global financial system – and thorough reform of the IMF is where we must begin.

(Author is Professor of Economics, Columbia University, formerly Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers to US President Bill Clinton and Chief Economist, World Bank.) -

[nicky g]

Sounds a lot better to me than forcible conversion, exile or murder, which is what Christian countries were doing to Muslims and Jews at a comparable time. Regardless, other religions were free from the Muslim obligation of tithing a portion of their income to charitable causes.

[nicky g]

"no investment"

This is hardly what we're talking about. Allowing and encouraging foreign investment is one thing; putting the economy at the mercy of thoe investors, allowing capital to flow unregulated out of the company, and selling off the family jewels to foreigners are other things.

Tom, thanks for the article. He talks more about unregulated capital flows in Globalisation, but also a lot about the things mentioned in your article. My single-cause summary was simplistic, but he does blame a lot of the policies we're seeing implemented in Iraq for the economic problems of Russia and Argentina, and elsewhere.

[MMMMMM]

Christianity and the West had the Enlightenment and Age of Reason, which has seen no remotely comparable development in the Islamic world. Islam is still fully mired in Medievalism. "Ideologically backward" is actually putting it rather mildly.

[Stu Pidasso]

Yes the trouble(i.e. collapsing Peso) occurred first, then the investment left. If Argentina had a sensible monetary policy the foriegn ivestment would not have left. Joseph Stiglitz is putting the cart before the horse.

Stu

[nicky g]

"If Argentina had a sensible monetary policy the foriegn investment would not have left. Joseph Stiglitz is putting the cart before the horse."

Maybe. But all countries run into economic problems/downturns, and in a developing country such as Argentina they're par for the course. Any sensibly-run economy that can't stand massive fluctuations allows itself time to take measures to recover and prevent panic actions from ruining it. That wasn't true of Argentina - once the flight started, there was nothing they could do to stop it.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
another liberal looking 2 save the world/?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hardley,

I'm about as conservative as Pat Buchanan except I think free trade is the best thing since the invention of the wheel.

Stu