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: tekboy who wrote (22345)	3/27/2002 2:20:17 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Does anyone have any idea why the Syrians wouldn't let Arafat speak at the Arab League Summit?

To: tekboy who wrote (22345)	3/27/2002 11:07:34 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I gave one guy 5-1 odds that there would be no attack before the end of April, and am confident it's taking candy from a baby That's a bet you'll win. We don't have the military assets to support an attack, and there's no way we can get them there by the end of April. As I said before, you can't move an army until you have a place to move it to, and I haven't read that any of Iraq's neighbors have offered their territory as a base. That issue will have to be resolved before deployment can begin, and the deployment will take at least a month. BBC reported today that Iraq and Kuwait have reached a "settlement" and are now good buddies. I doubt that this is more than a scrap of paper, but it does suggest that Kuwait may not be on the verge of offering to host a US invasion force. I would expect the US to go through the ritual of demanding that Iraq accept more inspectors, force Iraq to refuse, and use that as a rationale to press for an invasion. The administration seems to have convinced many Americans that an invasion is necessary, but the the people that they have to convince do not seem persuaded. It is not the easiest of tasks, in the absence of a smoking gun. No direct connection between Iraq and 9/11 has been demonstrated. Whatever WMD and WMD deployment capacity Iraq has now is presumably what they've had since before the Gulf war: further development under the conditions they've faced since then would be very difficult. Iraq did not use WMD in that conflict, and we have yet to produce evidence that they have provided WMD to terrorists. The Iraqi regime has been involved in genocide before, but it isn't doing it now, and the measures currently in force seem adequate to protect the Kurds. It is difficult to argue that an immediate invasion is necessary to protect any threatened minority or any neighboring country. In general, it will be very easy to make a case for the proposition that Saddam sucks, and somewhat more difficult to argue that an invasion is necessary right now. Before people start firing up the flamethrowers, let me point out that I do not necessarily agree, at least not in full, with the argument I've laid out above. I'm just laying out the reasoning that the administration will face in its efforts to convince other countries to cooperate.

To: tekboy who wrote (22345)	3/28/2002 8:21:57 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

What next for Iraq? Jane's 20 March 2002 janes.co.uk [A scenario projected by Jane's, more arguments for tekboy's bet:] A torrent of anti-American criticism continues to pour out of the world's media and Britain's Tony Blair only managed with some difficulty to prevent a major dispute with his European colleagues over Iraq at the European Union's latest summit, which took place in Spain last weekend. However, far from feeling isolated or disheartened, the administration is proceeding quickly to finalising military options on Iraq. Here are the details of the current thinking in Washington. Contrary to press reports, the Bush administration has not decided yet on what type of operation is envisaged. Pentagon planners laugh at the force of 250,000 mentioned in the media. The world press is out of date and out of touch. First, today's wars are not about huge numbers of troops. Even in Afghanistan where the American interest was obvious and public support remained overwhelming, the Pentagon never authorised the presence of more than 35,000 US troops - a ceiling that was never even reached. The United States did not wish to occupy Afghanistan, and has no interest in occupying Iraq. Air power again The key to these campaigns is the combination of massive air power with the insertion of highly mobile but restricted numbers of special forces, designed to mop up on the ground, quickly and efficiently, what air power alone cannot do. True, the Pentagon has a plan to occupy Iraq, but it is one of many and will probably gather dust on a shelf. Don't expect anything tomorrow The Pentagon needs time to prepare. Nobody knows how many troops will remain in Central Asia, and how many more will be needed for another campaign. This should take until the summer. The Pentagon has written off the possibility of using its bases in Saudi Arabia. The bases in Turkey will be used. Nobody has noticed, but the Americans have set up bases in Romania and Bulgaria, both on the Black Sea. These skeleton bases will serve as a supply line and as places for pre-positioning equipment. At the same time, the screws are being turned on Saddam himself. He may make some concessions to Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, who is currently talking to the Iraqis. But whatever the Iraqis offer, it will not be enough for the Americans. Eventually negotiations will break down and Bush will authorise the preparations for war. Neither the Russians nor the Europeans will complicate matters. This cat-and-mouse game could last until autumn. 403 of 873 words [End of non-subscriber extract.]