SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : War

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (11572)2/17/2002 1:53:09 AM
From: D. Long  Read Replies (2) of 23908
 
Your Judeofascist catch-all theory interferes with your thinking Gustave. I believe the condition used to be called MONOMANIA.

The Administration has backed Powell's statements, by the way. You must have missed that bit of news in Belgium. Not that you're to blame, no scandal value there so it doesn't get the headlines.

The President is free to send whomever he pleases, like Clinton sending Gore to botch Russian relations on his behalf, for example. There's no secret that Powell is a minority voice. But even Powell has, as I noted, changed his tone 180 degrees and is now publicly declaring the necessity, not just the mere desirability, of a REGIME CHANGE in Iraq. Not a change of power, a change of REGIME. Very important distinction.

Aziz has been making noises about allowing inspectors back in, Gustave. Why the change of heart? Saddam knows he's cornered. The Russians have turned their backs, and his brother Arabs are sticking their hands out for the "gimme's" Cheney will be distributing. The sanctions regime comes up for renewal this Spring. How much you want to bet what happens if Saddam refuses to allow inspectors complete, unrestricted access this time? Even Putin gave the US a letout! He said the US shouldn't attack Iraq, but that Iraq must allow inspectors in. What are the Russians going to get out of this one, when Putin looks the other way and the US invades? Maybe the US has something up its sleeve...

stratfor.com

"For Moscow, the issue is leverage. The presence of U.S. troops in Georgia would be far more threatening to Russia's long-term interests than comparable deployments to Central Asia. There is little Russia could do to stop the United States if it chooses to intervene in Georgia. Putting U.S. troops into Georgia -- which borders NATO ally Turkey -- could presage Georgian membership in the alliance itself. That puts Russia in the awkward position of needing to please the United States -- its "ally" in the war on terrorism -- in order to avoid being flanked by NATO, its Cold War foe.

Moreover, it means Washington could dangle Georgia as a prize -- or a hammer -- as it considers military action against Iraq. Moscow firmly opposes any new military action against Baghdad. All of Iraq's other friends, however, have fallen away for their own reasons, leaving Moscow alone behind Saddam Hussein."

Derek
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext