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: haqihana who wrote (226596)	2/12/2002 8:41:32 PM
From: JEB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Iraq Losing Allies in Face of U.S. Threats 11 February 2002 Summary While the United States continues a war of words against Iraq, Baghdad's allies are beginning to melt away. Russia has reversed its position, China is offering the bare minimum of support and the Arab states are resigned to the inevitable. Should the United States decide to take action against Baghdad, few countries will publicly stand in its way. Analysis U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told a House of Representatives committee Feb. 6 that the United States might have to act alone to bring about a "regime change" in Iraq. Powell said that U.S. President George W. Bush is considering "the most serious set of options one might imagine" for dealing with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, The Associated Press reported. Powell's statements come after a series of diplomatic disappointments for Iraq. Long-time supporters Russia and China are quietly distancing themselves from Baghdad, and Iraq's Arab neighbors are beginning to accept what they see as an inevitable outcome. Although few nations actively support the idea of U.S. military action against the country, few if any will make a serious effort to stop Washington. If the United States does make good on its warnings toward Iraq, it will need more than the grudging acceptance it has so far received from several frontline states such as Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait. And Washington still needs time to cajole a reluctant Saudi Arabia. But outside the Middle East, much of the diplomatic heavy lifting is already done. Hussein has little hope that his Arab neighbors will be able to keep the United States from carrying out military action. A recent Wall Street Journal article pointed out that a number of Arab regimes such as Egypt and Jordan are quietly signaling their approval of a U.S. campaign against Iraq. This is in part because they would like to see the erratic Hussein gone, they don't want to endanger Washington's political and economic support and any attempt to stop the Bush administration would likely prove fruitless anyway. Many of these nations will continue their current efforts to pacify their populations by publicly condemning U.S. actions for a time, but privately they won't interfere with Washington, and several will offer logistical support. But there are two conditions. First, Iraq's territorial integrity must be maintained -- none of Baghdad's neighbors want to see a Kurdish or Shiite enclave break away. Second, none of these regimes, especially Turkey and Saudi Arabia, want a replay of the Persian Gulf War. This time the Hussein regime must be toppled for good. Hussein's strongest diplomatic backers have always been Russia and China, but their support is evaporating as well. Russia's official position -- as evidenced by a Feb. 11 Wall Street Journal interview with President Vladimir Putin -- is still opposed to any military campaign against Iraq. But actions speak louder than words, and Moscow is definitely cooling its relations with Baghdad. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz made two visits to Moscow in 10 days. The first, from Jan. 25-27, went much as Aziz expected. He met with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, who said Moscow opposes U.S. military action against Iraq and wants to see long-standing U.N. sanctions against the country lifted. But the Russian position collapsed after Bush's Jan. 29 State of the Union address, which was extremely aggressive with regard to Iraq. Aziz returned to Moscow Jan. 30 expecting more talks. But Ivanov reportedly refused to meet with him and suggested that no further talks would be held until Baghdad gave some ground on allowing U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq, according to Russian daily Kommersant. As Aziz was flying home, Russian diplomats termed the visit a "technical stopover," according to Interfax. Moscow's switch reflects its new foreign policy orientation, which emphasizes strategic partnership with the United States and Europe to get the economic engagement necessary to rebuild the country. Moscow would rather not back away from its relationship with longtime ally and oil partner Iraq. But Russia is cutting its strategic losses, betting that the Hussein regime isn't going to be around much longer and calculating that a relationship with Washington will pay off more. In fact, Moscow may already be receiving part of this payoff. Powell announced Feb. 6 that the United States would sign a legally binding agreement on nuclear arms cuts, something that Moscow had been pushing for weeks. After his failed Russia trip, Aziz didn't have much better luck in Beijing. He did get to meet with Prime Minister Zhu Rongji and Vice Prime Minister Qian Qichen. But both leaders offered precious little support. Qian told Aziz that China does not support the expansion of the anti-terrorism war and stressed that Iraq should cooperate with the United Nations in order to avoid "new and complicated situations," according to Xinhua. In other words, Iraq should not look to China to stop the United States but should play by the rules, let in U.N. weapons inspectors and hope to shift the tide of world opinion in its favor. Like their colleagues in Russia, the Chinese foreign policy apparatus is in a tizzy trying to adjust to Washington's rapidly developing war plans. And like the Russians, the Chinese leadership's first priority is ensuring that Beijing stays on Washington's good side. Losing two of his biggest sponsors leaves Hussein without many options. He is now embarking on a full-tilt diplomatic and public relations offensive, focused especially on Europe. Iraq announced Feb. 3 that it would reopen its embassy in Switzerland and would dispatch a delegation to Spain, which currently chairs the European Union. Hussein also volunteered to open his country to human-rights inspectors, who have been kept out of Iraq for a decade. And he sent word to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that he is ready to start negotiations on letting weapons inspectors back into Iraq, according to United Arab Emirates daily Al-Bayan. The next few months will see volleys of diplomatic maneuvering as the Iraqis attempt to spit-shine their blood-soaked public image and Washington attempts to find a way to unseat Hussein with a minimum amount of U.S. casualties and diplomatic backlash. Ultimately, the harder part for Washington will not be getting Hussein out but figuring out what to do after he is gone. stratfor.com

To: haqihana who wrote (226596)	2/12/2002 11:42:08 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"The majority of Frenchmen are caucasian just as I am. How the hell can you call that racist, and retain a shred of credibility??" Racism isn't just a black and white issue my friend, you should know that and since you seem to think your ethnic slur suggests you think yourself superior to the French, that makes it a racist comment. " In WW2 the Russians never got close the France," Dumbie, the Russians occupied the Nazi's on the Eastern Front and killed hundreds of thousands....they captured Berlin. " and when Britain tried to invade, they got their butts beat, and were kicked out at Dunkirk. They did not hold the Western Front on their own. When they left Dunkirk, there was no western front. It was all Britain could do to save their own island through the Battle of Britain." The British Isles were the Western Front until D-Day....!!! "Had it not been for the RAF, with a number of American pilots, they would be speaking German right now. British troops could not, and did not return to mainland Europe until D-Day, which they could not have managed with American troops, and leadership." And we could not have managed it without them and their homeland from which the attack was launched. They also broke the code of the Enigma Machine, a fact that a man with your handle should know. Enigma decoding played a huge unheralded part in the outcome of the war!!! "At least read some history before making an ass out of yourself. Never mind, it impossible for you not to make an ass out of yourself, because your chances of credibility vanish with you high degree of stupid." I think you've been clearly shown to be shallow so far, but hey there's still hope....just do some research, see below. "The French were soundly defeated at Dien Ben Phew (sp?), " That would be Dien Bien Phu... "and would have been trapped had we not stepped in to rescue the troops they had left." On the contrary, the French were not trapped....they designed and built Dien Bien Phu in hopes of gaining a pitched battle with the Viet Minh. The same characters that beat us beat them and we had much better weapons. At their peak the French had 500,000 troops in country, just about equal to the number we had (575K I think) at our peak years later. AND WE DID NOT STEP TO RESCUE THE TROOPS THEY HAD LEFT......!!! History buff, my ass..... "Yes, we left Vietnam in disgrace, and you can thank politicians for that." And were politicians responsible for the French loss also? Did we both suffer from lack of troops and technology? 'The only reason France helped us at all in the Revolution, was because they hated the British." Hate is no reason to go to war....security and economics usually are the reason unless religious zealots are in control. " All they did, as a nation, was send one of their fleets for one blockade. Lafayette came on his own, and personally financed his involvement in the Revolutionary War." Didn't they recruit the Indians to help against Brits? "Go back to school. All of this is taught in Middle School. I guess you dropped out about that time." If your memory of the school you were taught this is as good as your facts, you and the school fail......