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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dealer who wrote (43887)	11/5/2001 12:26:22 AM
From: Dealer	Respond to of 65232

Sunday, November 4, 2001 NATO officials won't say whether Iraq may be targeted in war on terror By Gregory Piatt, Stars and Stripes BRUSSELS, Belgium — NATO officials, who invoked the alliance’s Article 5 clause shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, know there might come a time when other countries become a focus for an allied response. But will Article 5, which says an attack on one ally is an attack on the alliance, cover an attack against Iraq? North Atlantic Treaty Organization members avoid a direct answer. But what they do say indicates that Iraq could come under NATO crosshairs in the war on terrorism. "That’s an interesting point because Article 5 has a wide scope," said one European NATO diplomat, on the condition of anonymity. "I cannot answer whether it would lead to an attack but it has a large effect." While allies offer help under Article 5, they are totally free to take "such action as [they] deem necessary," said Robert Hunter, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and now an analyst with the Rand think tank in Washington, D.C., quoting from the article in the alliance charter. "This could be ‘including the use of military force,’ but that or any other action is in no way required," Hunter told Stars and Stripes in a phone interview Friday. "Thus, Article 5 doesn’t automatically imply military action." But one of the reasons NATO invoked Article 5 was so Europeans could have a say in how the United States conducts the war on terrorism, Hunter said. Some allies are worried the United States may overreact militarily and expand its goals to include the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. As the United States prosecutes its war on terrorism in Afghanistan, U.S. and British officials are playing down any Iraqi culpability in favor of toppling the Taliban regime and destroying Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network, which the United States says perpetrated the attacks. The focus on Afghanistan and bin Laden is an effort to keep the broad coalition of Muslim and non-Muslim nations together. But speculation about Iraq being the source of anthrax used in the recent biological attacks may point to Iraq having had a hand in the attacks. The Czech Republic announced last weekend that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani, met in Prague with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the terrorist attacks, just five months before the hijackings. But the April meeting remains a mystery and does not prove Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks, said Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross. However, the meeting came several weeks before Al-Ani was expelled from the country for being suspected of plotting an attack on U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe headquartered in Prague, Czech officials said. Iraq has denied any involvement in any possible Prague attack, the Sept. 11 attacks or even that a meeting between Atta and Al-Ani ever took place. On Wednesday, German law enforcement officials said Iraq has systematically hidden secret agents across Germany. Atta lived in Germany before coming to the United States. German officials said they haven’t uncovered any Iraqi links to the Sept 11 attack or with Atta. If concrete evidence of any Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks is uncovered, the United States would have to present it to its allies to see if Article 5 applies. But for NATO to act against Iraq there would have to be another decision by NATO’s ruling body of 19 ambassadors, the North Atlantic Council, Hunter said. Some U.S. officials reportedly have been gathering that information and hope the second phase of the war focuses on Iraq. "Iraq has been on the terrorist list for years," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week. "There is no question but that Iraq is a state that has committed terrorist acts and has sponsored terrorist acts. And clearly as a terrorist state, [it] is a threat to other countries in the world, including the United States. "I will say this, the president has said this is a war against terrorist networks across the globe. There are many more than just al-Qaida. They are in many more countries beyond Afghanistan. And it is something that we as a country and the many countries assisting us are currently [focusing on]." But as NATO focuses on this war, another NATO diplomat said the latest evidence doesn’t point to Iraq, but to bin Laden. "It’s Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida that we are after; if the evidence changes we will obviously follow that trail wherever it goes," the diplomat said.

To: Dealer who wrote (43887)	11/5/2001 12:38:23 AM
From: James F. Hopkins	Respond to of 65232

RE >> Graham, who attended the seaport security briefing, is co-sponsor of a Senate bill to enhance federal security at seaports, allot $168 million for new technology to monitor the 16,000 or so containers that enter U.S. seaports on average each day and provide $145 million for 1,500 new customs inspectors. <<< Well at least they are looking, and the above is an improvement. However a loaded container ship does not lend itself to inspection in a way that would prevent a bomb in a container being found before it could be set off. The containers need to be inspected certified clear and sealed as they are loaded. What they are doing is like checking the luggage on a plane after it arrives. Jim