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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (219521)	1/17/2002 4:18:07 PM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 769670

Analysis: U.S. to try new approach on Iraq Date: Thursday, January 17, 2002 3:56:02 PM EST By MARTIN WALKER, UPI Chief International Correspondent A strategy has been agreed to apply intense pressure on Iraq this year by demanding the unconditional return of United Nations inspectors to scour the country for signs of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons research and development, with the clear threat of military action if Iraq refuses or blocks the inspections. President George Bush gave the first public signal of the new strategy Wednesday, when welcoming Turkish Premier Bulent Ecevit to the White House. "I expect Saddam Hussein to let inspectors back into the country. We want to know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He claims he's not; let the world in to see," Bush said. "And if he doesn't, we'll have to deal with that at the appropriate time," Bush added. Asked what the U.S. would do if Saddam Hussein defied the inspectors, Bush replied: "If he doesn't let them in? He'll find out." Senior State Department officials believe they will be able to get United Nations backing for the demand that the U.N. inspection teams be allowed to return, after they were expelled by Iraq in December 1998. Iraqi defiance could then trigger a graduated enforcement response, with U.N. backing providing the cover that Iraq's nervous neighbors would need to cooperate. Senior U.S. officials describe this as "a win-win strategy." If Saddam Hussein lets the inspectors in, then they will be able to identify and publicize what the last inspection reports said was a formidable WMD arsenal, including components for 3-4 nuclear weapons, lacking only uranium fuel. If Saddam Hussein refuses the inspections, he gives the U.S. a legitimate excuse to act, probably starting with an extension of the current no-fly zones over the whole of Iraqi airspace, along with intrusive U.S. and possibly British air patrols. As well as putting much greater pressure on the regime, this would facilitate far more detailed aerial reconnaissance of suspect WMD sites, and movements between them. Along with satellite intelligence, intensified aerial reconnaissance could identify more possible targets for intrusive inspection if and when Iraq decides to accept the return of the UN teams. The strategy, as Bush administration officials see it, contains an umber of important advantages. First, it brings the prospect of wide international support, even from the Arab world, where several countries have warned against unilateral U.S. military action. Second, it is a graduated strategy, allowing the U.S. to escalate by tightening the diplomatic and military pressure at times of its own choosing. Third, it relates to a clear, identifiable and proven danger to other states in the region. The evidence is clear from previous U.N. inspections that Iraq has maintained clandestine programs of missile and WMD development, including 50 tons of nerve gas precursors that are not accounted for. The U.N. Special Commission's final report, ater being expelled by Iraq, concluded (with specific reference to biological warfare agents): "The commission has little or no confidence in the accounting for proscribed items for which physical evidence is lacking or inconclusive, documentation is sparse or non-existent, and coherence and consistency is lacking. These include, for example: quantities and types of munitions available for BW filling; quantities and types of munitions filled with BW agents; quantities and type of bulk agents produced; quantities of bulk agents used in filling; quantities of bulk agents destroyed; quantities of growth media acquired for the program; quantities of growth media used/consumed; and when or whether the program ended. In addition the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed; that no BW munitions or weapons remain in Iraq; and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq". "Since the U.N. inspections ended, further evidence has accumulated from Iraqi defectors, that suggest that the danger from Iraq's WMD program has increased, "Iraq is still committed to developing weapons of mass destruction," the Wisconsin Panel on Arms Control concluded late last year after a further survey. "In biological weaponry, Iraq is now self-sufficient; it has what is necessary to build a biological arsenal. Iraq also appears to possess stocks of chemical agent and is known to have had virtually every element of a workable nuclear weapon except the fissile material needed to fuel it. Iraq's authorized program for developing short-range ballistic missiles could enable the building of longer-range missiles, and Iraq is also showing an interest in cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles." -- newsalert.com

To: gao seng who wrote (219521)	1/17/2002 5:37:53 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Interesting article.... "Many Turks believe they were cheated out of the Northern Iraqi oil-producing region of Mosul in the carving up of the Turkish-ruled Ottoman Empire after World War I. The Turkish prime minister briefly raised the question of taking back northern Iraq in 1995." "Would Turkey go along with an American invasion of Iraq? Possibly, but its price might be high. For example, it might want the whole of northern Iraq. What Turkey did not want in 1991 and does not want in 2001 is self-determination within Iraq." "That's because, besides the Iraqi Arabs and the Turks, there is one more nation that believes itself entitled to the mountains and oil fields of Northern Iraq: the stateless Kurds. There are some 22 million Kurds, most living in the mountains near Turkey's borders with Iraq, Iran and Syria." "They are often said to be the largest ethnic group in the world without their own state, though that seems debatable. (African-Americans, for example, are more numerous, and India is full of larger ethnic groups.)" ... "So, there is only one ideal launching pad for an invasion of Iraq. It's the same one as in 1991: Saudi Arabia. ...There is only one little problem. Saudi Arabia would almost certainly refuse America permission to use its soil to launch an invasion, just as the royal family has not allowed the U.S. Air Force to attack Afghanistan from U.S. airfields in the kingdom. (The Saudis were one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban regime.)" "The Gulf Arabs have many reasons to prefer the current accommodation to war with Iraq. When Hussein grabbed Kuwait in 1990, the Saud family initially assumed it would pay off Hussein rather than fight." "Further, the Saudis and other Sunni Muslim Gulf Arabs still fear that the collapse of central government in Iraq could unleash chaos that could sweep them away, too. Just as the Turks dread an independent Kurdistan growing out of the ruins of Iraq, the Sunnis fear a Shiite state aligned with Iran emerging in the oilfields of Southern Iraq." >>> So that's at least three new states that could emerge from a disintergrating Iraq: Kurdistan, Turkmen, and the Shiites in the south... as well as 'border adjustments' such as Turkey grabbing northern oil fields.... >>> And, regarding the American conquest and administration of Saudi Arabia ("Saudi America"?): "If the United States isn't willing to be ruthless enough to rule an empire, then perhaps it should restrict itself to rooting out bin Laden and the Taliban rather than planning an empire for which it doesn't have the stomach." >>> Interesting series of speculations... and it seems to lead to the logical conclusion that we're not going to be attacking any large nation-states.