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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (2778)	2/12/2002 2:05:21 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

What pipeline? I thought our presence in Afghanistan was for the drugs as they produce 70 percent of the world's heroin and, i thought, most of the morphine. Mullah Omar was going to wipe out those crops, hmm and as we've heard poppa Bush and his CIA along with Noriega trafficked drugs into this country: FROM DEA site On July 28, 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Omar issued a decree banning future opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. The decree states that the Taliban will eradicate any poppy cultivation found in the 2001 growing season in areas under their control. Reportedly, this ban applies to any territory seized from the Northern Alliance. In February 2001, the UNDCP declared that the opium poppy cultivation ban was successful and that the 2001 crop was expected to be negligible. This marks the first real effort by the Taliban to reduce opium production. In 1999, the Taliban decreed that opium poppy cultivation would be reduced by one-third in 1999-2000. However, this did not occur. The Taliban did report that opium poppies were destroyed in Qandahar and Helmand Provinces. This eradication effort was apparently in response to an agreement with the UNDCP, which agreed to fund alternative development projects on the condition that cultivation be reduced in Qandahar. In fact, there was a 50 percent reduction in the three UNDCP target districts in Qandahar, but there was not a one-third reduction overall as promised by the Taliban

To: TigerPaw who wrote (2778)	2/13/2002 2:42:53 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

W is still obsessed with the Taliban. I saw him on tv last night. The only thing he could talk about was the Taliban and how important his objectives are. I thought we defeated the Taliban awhile back.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (2778)	2/13/2002 2:46:14 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Powell says there aren't any near term plans for going to war with axix of evil, according to the news reports that I read a little while ago so maybe the US backs away since they won't have any help from any other countries. Even Putin warned the US against attacking Iraq. Recently, war looked imminent: US says it will act to overthrow Saddam "Pouring scorn on the notion of an "axis of evil", the French Foreign Minister, Hubert Védrine, openly criticised "simplistic" American foreign policy. Saudi Arabia, whose bases would be essential for an invasion of Iraq, also signalled its opposition." independent co.uk By Rupert Cornwell and David Usborne 07 February 2002 In a major policy shift, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, declared yesterday that there should be a "regime change" in Iraq and that Washington was prepared to pursue that goal alone if necessary. America is spoiling as never before for action to settle its unfinished business with Iraq, the country singled out by President George Bush as the most menacing member of his "axis of evil". Whatever he means, and whatever the obstacles, the name of the game is clear – "regime change". But just how this will be achieved remains clouded in uncertainty. General Powell told Congress that Mr Bush was considering "a full range of options". Charles Duelfer, a former deputy chairman of the UN weapons inspectors and a leading Iraq specialist, said: "They've taken the decision that the Iraq problem has to be solved, not managed, and there's certainly an inclination to do this militarily. But the details still have to be worked out." Various scenarios are being floated, from fomenting internal opposition to Saddam Hussein, to striking Iraqi installations or even dispatching 100,000 or more US troops to complete the job left unfinished in 1991. General Powell told Congress: "We believe strongly in regime change in Iraq and look forward to the day when a democratic, representative government leads Iraq to rejoin the family of nations." In an admission of the lack of international backing for the overthrow of Mr Hussein, he suggested the US "might have to do it alone". And he had a curt answer to Iraq's offer of a new dialogue, saying this should be "a very short discussion" in which the UN inspectors, ejected in 1998, "have to go back on our terms". UN diplomats appear equally sceptical about the chances of a breakthrough at the proposed meeting between Iraqi officials and the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan. They note that similar encounters had come and gone in the past with no significant results. But there is little sense that Washington is any closer to resolving the fierce debate over military action in Iraq. One source close to the Security Council said: "The battle hasn't been settled. If Iraq is getting the message that they might be about to get a thumping that's OK but there is a very big difference between the words coming out of Washington and something actually happening." More immediately pressing for the Council is a two-day meeting, which started yesterday, between Russian and American diplomats in Geneva, on implementing a new Iraq sanctions regime agreed in November. Once that deal is in place, the US will be tempted to force a new showdown over weapons inspectors. If Iraq still refuses to admit them, military action could follow. But Washington would probably find itself with scant international support, at least in public. Pouring scorn on the notion of an "axis of evil", the French Foreign Minister, Hubert Védrine, openly criticised "simplistic" American foreign policy. Saudi Arabia, whose bases would be essential for an invasion of Iraq, also signalled its opposition. news.independent.co.uk