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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mannie who wrote (3532)	7/31/2002 12:23:04 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

We can keep score on the financial statement certifications... sec.gov

To: Mannie who wrote (3532)	7/31/2002 1:20:26 AM
From: surfbaron	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Scott: what do you want Scott, secret memos, deep throat. Have you ever heard of the plight of the Kurds under Saddam. What part of the word dictatorship don't you understand. Or is he a nice one?

To: Mannie who wrote (3532)	7/31/2002 5:15:18 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Iraq attack plans alarm top military US and UK commanders 'scratching their heads' to make sense of invasion By Richard Norton-Taylor and Julian Borger, Washington The Guardian Tuesday July 30, 2002 Military commanders on both sides of the Atlantic are privately expressing deep unease about American plans to invade Iraq, believing they are ill thought out with the strategy to achieve the ultimate objective - toppling Saddam Hussein - far from clear. It will be a "gargantuan task" which could spark off a conflagration across the Middle East, a European military official warned yesterday. A senior British military source said it was clear there was a "desire of the US government [to attack Iraq] on their own if necessary". He added: "We are scratching our heads to see what could make strategic sense." US contingency plans include: heavy air strikes combined with a relatively small invasion force of 5,000 troops; a force of some 50,000 troops which could be deployed quickly deep inside Iraq; and a massive ground force of 250,000 US troops supported by 25,000 British soldiers. All the options are described by a British military source as "high risk". British military planners - under Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the defence staff known for his cautious approach and retiring next spring - are reluctantly drawing up their own contingency plans in the event of an expected request from Washington for support. Some British military sources suggest the US plans, leaked by the Pentagon, are merely psychological warfare on Washington's part. Their preferred option is to continue the existing policy of containment combined with attempts to destabilise the regime. In pursuit of the "containment" option, American bombers, supported by RAF aircraft, on Sunday attacked a communications site in southern Iraq, the US central command revealed yesterday. It was the sixth such strike this month in response to what the US said were hostile actions by Iraq. Growing concern among senior members of the armed forces about the wisdom of invading Iraq was echoed yesterday by General Sir Michael Rose, a former head of the SAS and of UN forces in Bosnia. In an article in London's Evening Standard under the heading: "The madness of going to war with Iraq", he said: "There are huge political and military risks associated with launching largescale ground forces into Iraq." A former chief of defence staff, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, warned in a letter to the Times that an invasion of Iraq would pour "petrol rather than water" on the flames and provide al-Qaida with more recruits. He quoted a predecessor who said during the 1956 Suez crisis: "Of course we can get to Cairo but what I want to know is what the bloody hell do we do when we get there?" Retired top military personnel frequently express the opinions of serving senior officers. These misgivings about an Iraqi military adventure echo apprehension among senior uniformed officers on the other side of the Atlantic, clear splits have emerged between America's professional soldiers and the gung ho civilian leaders in the White House and the Pentagon. In briefings calculated to query the administration's persistent sabre rattling towards Iraq, unnamed officers told the Washington Post that the policy of containment was working well and that the alternative, a military assault, was too riddled with risk to be worth pursuing. The officers even questioned the motivation behind the Bush administration's preoccupation with ousting Saddam as part of a wider "war on terror". One general described as being "involved in the Afghanistan war" suggested it could be a matter of settling scores for the Bush family, after an alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate the president's father during a 1993 visit to Kuwait. "I'm not aware of any linkage to al-Qaida or terrorism," the general said, "so I have to wonder if this has something to do with his father being targeted by Saddam." But another uniformed officer at the Pentagon played down the importance of the dissenting voices. "Has there ever been a single military operation where you haven't had some voices wondering whether it's a good idea? Probably not," the officer told the Guardian. Michael O'Hanlon, a strategic analyst at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington also argued that the reports of uniform-civilian splits had been exaggerated. "If there are more than one or two on the joint chiefs of staff who are against it, I'd be surprised," he said. "The thrust is how you do it and when you do it. They're not questioning the president's decision on whether to do it." But he said senior officers were also concerned about "the casual march to war" being pursued by hawks in the administration, who portrayed the operation as relatively risk-free. Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and an advocate of an assault on Iraq, rejected the anxiety voiced as irrelevant. The decision to take on Saddam, he said, was "a political judgment that these guys aren't competent to make". guardian.co.uk

To: Mannie who wrote (3532)	7/31/2002 5:17:52 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Blair given 'devastating' warning on attack Michael White, political editor Tuesday July 30, 2002 The Guardian King Abdullah of Jordan yesterday warned Tony Blair that US-led military action to remove Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq "would have devastating effects" on the Middle East. As the leader of one of the region's key moderate states expressed his concern, Labour anxieties that an attack on Iraq may be launched without the legal protection of a fresh UN mandate also increased despite repeated official insistence that "no decision has been taken". During 30 minutes of talks with the prime minister at Downing Street the king stressed the linkage - which Mr Blair is reluctant to acknowledge in public - between progress on a solution to the Palestinian crisis and Anglo-American concerns about weapons of mass destruction allegedly being amassed by the Baghdad regime. Both sides later said that the talks had focused primarily on the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, "especially the urgent need to put an end to the deteriorating security situation and to alleviate suffering of the Palestinian people", Jordanian officials emphasised. But they also made plain that the king also wants President Bush - whom he is visiting this week - to listen more to his secretary of state, Colin Powell, than to US hawks who are "fixated on Iraq" rather than the pressing need for relief supplies and a diplomatic timetable for a Palestinian state. Mr Blair is jumpy about reports that he has already signalled willingness to back a US attack with British forces, despite the widespread doubts in Europe and the Middle East which, in an interview yesterday, King Abdullah suggested the prime minister privately shares. Mr Blair also had his first meeting yesterday with Dr Rowan Williams, the man he last week endorsed as the new Archbishop of Canterbury, despite his known scepticism about a fresh war against Saddam. The No 10 spokesman said the talks were "likely to be fairly introductory and wide-ranging". Bruce George, Labour chairman of the Commons defence committee, yesterday admitted that US and UK lawyers would be able to find legal justifications for a future attack, but said it would be politically wise for Mr Blair to get a new UN mandate if he is to avoid serious opposition in parliament. King Abdullah's London statement en route for Washington reiterated Jordon's desire for "dialogue based on UN security council resolutions (as) the only way to defuse the situation" in Iraq. Senior Tory MPs claim that the king privately backs US military action. guardian.co.uk