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: JohnM who wrote (36187)	8/6/2002 11:20:30 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Much too different circumstances. Required different calculations at the outset. The WWII calculations were, rightfully, all defensive; Oh give me a break.. Just because Clinton was too gutless to take Saddam to task except for "Desert Fox" (inspired by his impeachment proceedings) doesn't mean we have to continue to be. The entire reason we didn't invade Baghdad in 1991 was due to the belief that Saddam would fall anyway. That didn't happen, which means WE "miscalculated" his ability to retain power. In this case, one of the central justifications for a "regime change" in Iraq is a better government, a better society. Thus, if that fails to come about, it's possible things could be worse NOTHING will change if we do nothing. 12 years of containment has failed and Saddam still pursues nuclear technology and provides support for terrorist groups. But it is CLEAR to almost everyone but you that, left alone, Saddam will cause further problems for the US and every other nation in the region. There is NO redeeming quality that can be associated with Saddam.. None at all. And he attempted to assasinate George Bush Sr. during a trip to Saudi Arabia. It was foiled. Hawk

To: JohnM who wrote (36187)	8/7/2002 6:47:31 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Bush's Cuban conflict A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL 8/7/2002 PRESIDENT BUSH has signaled his intention to veto legislation passed by the Republican-dominated House of Representatives last month that would ease restrictions on trade with and travel to Cuba. Bush claims that isolating Cuba is the only way to bring democracy and support for human rights to the island. His thinking is outdated. He ought to follow the lead of Congress and relinquish his grasp on a 40-year-old policy that is little more than symbolic. On July 23 the House voted 262-167 to allow US companies to sell their goods more easily and US citizens to travel to the island without fear of retaliatory action by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control. The Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, said he believes there will be strong support for the easing of sanctions in the Senate, where legislation is expected to be introduced following the August recess. Clare Buchan, a spokeswoman for President Bush, was quoted in The New York Times saying, ''The president's Cuba policy is part of his overall foreign policy of promoting freedom and democracy around the world.'' Yet Bush allows trade with such countries as North Korea and Iran, nations the US government considers lacking in basic democratic and human rights. With countries other than Cuba, Bush makes US economic interests the priority. Cuba's unique treatment stems from the political power of a small group of Cuban-Americans in southern Florida, a population President Bush considers essential to his own political future and that of his brother, Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. Democrats have also been reluctant to cross this group. While President Bush clings to symbolic sanctions, numerous GOP lawmakers have begun to recognize Cuba's vast potential as a food and agricultural market. The House vote to ease restrictions included 73 Republicans. Since 2000, when the US government authorized limited sales of US food and agricultural products to Cuba, 30 states have been directly trading with the island. According to data compiled by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States, Alimport - the import department of Cuba's Ministry of Foreign Trade - purchased $109 million worth of agricultural products from the United States in 2001. That number is expected to increase to $165 million this year. As for human rights, opening travel and trade to the island would improve the monitoring of human rights abuses and expose more Cubans to American values. Bush ought to put the interests of both Cubans and Americans before his domestic political needs. US sanctions against Cuba have done little but deny Cubans goods made in the United States while denying Americans potential business in Cuba. It is time for the president to focus on improved relations with our neighbor 90 miles to the south. © Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company. boston.com

To: JohnM who wrote (36187)	8/7/2002 7:09:10 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Senate didn't hear from Iraq experts By SEAN GONSALVES SYNDICATED COLUMNIST Tuesday, August 6, 2002 Last week's Senate hearings on whether the United States should go to war in Iraq could hardly be given much credibility by any serious student of U.S.-Iraq policy, given the conspicuous absences of Iraq experts who offer indispensable insight. For starters, even though he notified Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden of his willingness to testify, Hans Von Sponeck was not invited to the discussion table. Who is Von Sponeck? Only a former United Nations assistant secretary general with impeccable credentials and the former head of the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq -- the organization that sanctions supporters claim is adequate to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi civilian population. Von Sponeck resigned his post several years ago in protest of the sanctions, realizing that not only was the oil-for-food program inadequate from the beginning, its hands were tied; not by the Iraqi government but by the "Washington consensus." I spoke to Von Sponeck last week. More familiar with the atrocities of the Iraqi dictator than most, he's no Saddam Hussein dupe. Nevertheless, he said, a fair and honest assessment must be made. "No one can approach this from a black or white perspective," he told me. "There is a massive sharing of responsibility for what is happening to the people of Iraq" that stretches from Baghdad to Washington. "The impression given here is that the oil-for-food program is being abused by the Iraqi government. Not true. Extensive independent medical research has been done investigating the impact of the sanctions." The root of the humanitarian crisis in Iraq is the lack of adequate water and electrical supply systems, which were intentionally destroyed in the Gulf War by U.S. bombs. With the sanctions blocking the contracts and materials needed to repair Iraq's infrastructure, thousands of innocent Iraqi children die each month of easily treatable, water-borne diseases in a country whose health care system was so advanced prior to the sanctions regime that the biggest problem facing Iraqi pediatricians was obesity. "That should be absorbed into the minds of those who deal with Iraq," Von Sponeck said. "We are grooming more anger, more extremists." And that's why he thinks the hearings are important. If only there were a broader range of expert opinion allowed at the discussion table so that the American people can understand what's really going on in Iraq. Although former UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler was called to testify, the man who served in that post the longest, Rolf Ekeus (1991 to 1997), was not. Ekeus, by the way, wrote a piece last week in the Swedish press about his tenure over the toughest weapons inspection regime in history and how the inspections process had been misused by the U.S. intelligence community to gather information that had nothing to do with the U.N. disarmament mandate. He also wrote about what he perceived as UNSCOM being used to provoke military confrontations with Iraq. Footnote: the weapons inspectors were pulled out of Iraq by Butler in December 1998 because of an imminent U.S. military strike. They were not kicked out by the Iraqi government, as has been widely misreported in our "free" press. The hearings also didn't include the technical expert UNSCOM called in to lead the inspection team on the ground when it had become apparent that Iraqi officials were lying about weapons retention -- former UNSCOM chief inspector Scott Ritter, a retired Marine intelligence officer who worked directly under Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War. "I feel very agitated by the deliberate distortions and misrepresentations," Von Sponeck said. "You have this attempt to portray Iraq in a way that makes it look to the average person in the U.S. as if Iraq is a threat to their security. I don't know by what stretch of the imagination that claim can be made." Having been in Iraq two weeks ago with a German TV news crew, Von Sponeck visited two of the sites that both media and government officials claim are likely sites for the production of chemical and biological weapons. "One of those sites is called Al Dora. It is on the outskirts of Baghdad. That facility was disabled by Mr. Ritter and the other inspectors in 1996. I visited there in 1999 and it was totally disabled. It was a shell with destroyed machinery. And two weeks ago, with a German television crew, we saw exactly the same thing. We didn't even have electricity. "But Mr. Ritter is a real expert on this. And he was there on the ground. You should check with him," Von Sponeck suggested. So, unlike the Senate hearing organizers, I did. Next week I'd like to share with you what Ritter -- a self-proclaimed "card-carrying Republican ... who voted for George W. Bush for president" -- thinks about all this. ---------------------------------------------------- Sean Gonsalves is a columnist with the Cape Cod Times. E-mail: sgonsalves@capecodonline.com seattlepi.nwsource.com