From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: Re: AUT: questions
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 04:53:35 +0100



----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Jovanovic" <peterzoran-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: 3. februar 2003 02.20
Subject: Re: AUT: questions


> hi all
>
> Nate wrote:
>First- The justification being used for the war drive is Iraq's alleged
>noncompliance with some UN Security Council resolution, I forget the
>number. Does anyone know what would constitute Iraq
>successfully complying

It changes over time, as it is up to the Bush administrations
interpretation. They want this war. That is the botton line.
Full disarment, or what probably amounts to the same, Saddam
stepping down from his throne, would probably also do the trick.
The joker Washington might said to have, is they know their
from alley well enough to recognize that he will always try to
hide something. Not that matter much though, as they can
always invent something.
        Somewhat interesting however is the stress now put on
the missing private interviews with scientists. It is interesting,
as like during the last Gulf War US propaganda is compelled
to in many ways paint a nicer picture of the regime than it
deserves. What they are actually asking for is for the scientists
to commit suicide, to say not about putting the lives of their
families on line. The chemical and biological weapons Iraq
probably still have to some degree are effective and intended
foremost for internal control. Though an U.S war will be an
even more effective means of mass destruction.

."Second- Another justification Bush etc have tried using is a supposed link
between the Iraqi government and Al Qaida. I know very little about middle
east politics, but I was under the impression that Al Qaida were/are hostile
to Iraq's government and its ruling party for religious reasons or some such
thing. Can anyone give me a brief explanation of this? And would anyone with
more knowledge of this area care to make some informed speculation on the
impact war would have on future relations between the Iraqi government and
Al Qaida? My guess is that the threat of complete destruction would make
Iraq's government more willing to consider having a relationship with Al
Qaida."

Weel one of the claimed Al Qaida links lives in Oslo, so that
would in theory be an argument for dropping some bombs
on this city, as the Norwegian government is harbouring an arch
terrorist. Now this mullah Krekar is extremely unpopular
among Iraqi and other Kurds here, and "they" want
him arrested for claimed – probably real – "human rights
abuses"  -- commited by his 60-200 armed thugs -- in the
"autonomous" northern Iraq. His group is called Ansar al-
Islami.  His lawyer in Norway is btw a Salvation Army
soldier. That Ansar al-Islami have recieved some
support from the Iraqi regime is very likely. Not due to any
religious reasons but to undermine the power of the dominant
Kurdish political factions in Northern Iraq. That is standard
Saddam procedure. He always was a true master when it
comes to game of divide and rule. It is further claimed, not
unreasonably -- that some "Afghan-Arabs" has moved to
his camp. But what in hell is Al Qaida. According to
Washington's definitions when called for, it could be
composed of millions.
        The there is another guy - Mussab al-Zarabi, who
more rightly is linked  to Al- Qaida with some expertise on
chemical weapons. He was wounded in Afganistan and
travelled to a hospital in Baghdad where he had one
foot amputated. It would be very unlikely if he was not
also interogated  there. But it is not at all likely that
the Ba'th regime in Iraq would have any interst at all in
getting mixed up with any Al-Qaida projects. And there
is nothing that points to Washington believes that
either. I may go home in the U.S through, as I read that a
a recent poll had showed that the belief that participants
in the 7.11 attack included many Iraqis was now quite
widespread in the United States. There were none, of course.
The most obvious bomb target in that respect -- now that
Afganistan is almost used up -- would have been Saudi-
Arabia; Pakistan and the United States.

To the "impact war would have on future relations
between the Iraqi government and  Al Qaida. " As a war
is designed to bring down the current regime, the
question is relavant. As for the present regime, they
would never trust anybody they could not control. In all
circumstances a regime that celebrates old Babylon,
and a Saddam Huseyn who sees himself as the inheritor
of Nebuchadezzar, endorsing any expression of
Isalmic integralism is as likely as Bush becoming a
communist..

I have hard to see the Shia opposition against the
Ba'th regime in the south of Iraq as very likely recruting
ground for al-Qaida either. They are if anything, far
more likely to look towards Iran.
        However I think it is right to say that there trhoughout
Iraqi also exists pretty strong identity. It is in relative
terms also a pretty secular country.

Harald









     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---