Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HG who wrote (5565)	10/16/2001 1:18:31 PM
From: k.ramesh	Respond to of 281500

To Change the subject NA gets Mazar-i-Sharif Northern Alliance captures Mazar-E-Sharif Press Trust of India Moscow, October 16: Northern Alliance Commander Abdul Rasheed Dostum on Tuesday captured the key strategic northern town of Mazar-E-Sharif with the assistance of 4,000 Taliban fighters who switched sides joining his ranks. After confusing reports about the fate of the key city, known as the northern gateway of Afghanistan, the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance said Uzbek warlord Dostum's troops entered Mazar-E-Sharif from the south and south-east, a Russian TV channel reported. The Northern Alliance, led by ousted Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani, ferried arms and ammunition by helicopter to Dostum, who has managed to rapidly cover the distance of 30-40 km in a couple of days without facing much resistance after local Taliban field commanders with 4,000 fighters joined his ranks. The NTV was reporting from the Afghan Opposition headquarters in Khoja Bahautdin. Earlier, quoting Afghan Embassy sources in Tajik capital Dushanbe, the Itar-Tass news agency reported heavy fighting near Mazar-E-Sharif airport between another Northern Alliance field commander and the Taliban units, mostly consisting of Pakistanis and Arab mercenaries. According to NTV, the Opposition forces are in a hurry to establish control over Mazar-E-Sharif before the launching of US ground attack from the Uzbekistan territory to gain a bargaining position. The US special forces could be planning to make Mazar-E-Sharif their main base for advancing deep into Afghanistan, just like the Soviets did in 1979, NTV said.

To: HG who wrote (5565)	10/16/2001 1:25:49 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

HG... I don't consider SA an "ally".. I consider them a "liability". The Saudis have the most to gain by this US action long-term as it will prove a major set-back to the financing and logistical support for extremist elements in their society. This war, just like during "Persian Excursion I", is a case of fixing what they have permitted to get out of hand. The Saudis have to have their arms twisted all the time to get them to cooperate on something that's in their own interest. During the Khobar towers investigation, the Saudis were less than helpful with providing information to the FBI, nor would they permit our folks to interview/interrogate the suspects they claimed were responsible. Personally, I don't having US troops guarding their butts either, but they have been unwilling to permit the kind of actions required to create long-term stability in the region (like replacing Saddam with someone less aggressive). If they want to be our friends, they should quit setting us up to take the fall for them all the time. If they want to be our friends, they should pressure Arafat to end the violence, or withdraw all financial support. Is they want to be our friends, they should spend more money on the prosperity of their own people, than on their mansions in the desert. That's how they can be our friend... Not by USING us to bail them out of problems they perpetuate, or help to create. Hawk

To: HG who wrote (5565)	10/16/2001 1:29:46 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

Fears, Again, of Oil Supplies at Risk nytimes.com People around here are certainly into dumping on the Saudis lately. I assume official contacts are more... diplomatic. "Watch what they do, not what they say" is appropriate, I think. If there is a serious disruption of oil supplies, it will probably not be in Venezuela or in the North Sea, but in the countries of the Persian Gulf. Those countries have taken the politically risky position of siding with the West, however quietly, in the campaign against Mr. bin Laden, thereby alienating many of their own citizens. And the proof of their support for the West is in the oil that OPEC nations continue to ship, recently forgoing a production cut even as they faced falling prices that rob them of revenue. . . . Saudi Arabia exports about eight million barrels a day and is the biggest single supplier of oil to the United States, accounting for 1.7 million barrels a day. The world's No. 2 exporter, Russia, which is not a member of OPEC, exports only 2.9 million barrels. The Saudis are the only ones with enough spare oil-field capacity to call on if there is a severe disruption elsewhere. Although Saudi Arabia led the 1973 oil embargo to protest American support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, it later stepped in to make up shortfalls of millions of barrels a day caused by conflicts in the Middle East, including the Iranian revolution, the Iran- Iraq war and the Persian Gulf war. Even over the past year, as Iraq intermittently curtailed its exports of two million barrels a day to demand changes in the United Nations sanctions against it, Saudi Arabia acted as the "swing producer," making up much of the difference. Short of withering in the grip of a coup d'état, Saudi Arabia's oil exports could be cut if its rulers decide that they no longer can afford to support the United States-led campaign against terrorism. If the bombings kill many civilians or if the war expands quickly, the Saudis may feel that they have no choice but to veer away from the United States and reduce the flow of oil. "The only way I see that happening is if the U.S. would continue to pick targets that would include Middle Eastern oil-producing countries — and how many it picked — and if it were done in a unilateral way," said Marianne Kah, chief economist at Conoco (news/quote). "But if it continues its multilateral approach, and includes friendly Arab countries, that won't happen."