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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (149864)	8/17/2002 2:03:02 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1570118

An interesting development..........which happens not too long after Mr. Bush broke the IBM treaty with Russia so we could develop greater missile protection. All the increasingly militaristic stance of this administration does is encourage the likelihood of dangerous alliances, solidifying them in the process. That's how their paranoia becomes self fulfilling. And according to Mr. Bush, he had and Putin were best buds.........right. Stupid is as stupid does! Furthermore, according to NBC News, the Rep. opposition to invading Iraq extends well beyond Swarzkof, and is growing quickly. Mr. Bush doesn't even have the full support of his own party........such lunacy! ____________________________________________________________ Russia, Iraq to Sign $40 Billion Deal By SARAH KARUSH .c The Associated Press MOSCOW (Aug. 17) - Russia and Iraq are preparing to sign a $40 billion economic cooperation plan, the Iraqi ambassador to Moscow said Saturday. The pact was likely to strain Moscow's relations with Washington as the United States considers a military attack against Baghdad. The five-year agreement envisions new cooperation in the fields of oil, irrigation, agriculture, railroads, other transportation sectors and electrical energy. It will most likely be signed in Baghdad in the beginning of September, Ambassador Abbas Khalaf told The Associated Press. The announcement came as Washington struggles to rally international support for a possible invasion of Iraq. Washington is determined to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein - possibly through a military operation - because of the threat posed by his regime's efforts to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Russia, a longtime ally of Iraq, has forcefully warned against a U.S. invasion. Moscow has also has supported lifting United Nations sanctions imposed after Baghdad's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Moscow hopes lifting sanctions would allow Baghdad to start paying off its $7 billion Soviet-era debt and help expand trade. Khalaf emphasized that the new cooperation deal, which is to include new projects as well as the modernization of some Soviet-built infrastructure, would not violate the sanctions. Russia's Foreign Ministry said Saturday it had no comment on the deal. In the current standoff with the United States, Iraq is counting on Russia to use its leverage in the U.N. Security Council and other diplomatic channels to deprive Washington of international support for a military operation, Khalaf said. ``First of all we need moral, political and diplomatic support. Because Iraq knows how to defend itself,'' Khalaf said. ``The main thing for us is that American aggression does not go through the U.N. Security Council and that America does not receive a U.N. mandate,'' he said. ``Let America act (alone) as an aggressor. It will be condemned from all sides.'' Khalaf dismissed the idea that Russia could yield to U.S. pressure and drop its opposition to an invasion. ``There won't be any concessions,'' he said. ``Iraq is Russia's most dependable partner in the East.'' At the same time, Khalaf said he saw no contradiction between Russia's friendship with Iraq and its ties with Washington, which have strengthened since the Sept. 11 attacks. ``We see friendship among various countries and civilized peoples of the world as a positive step. Any enmity brings harm to a country,'' he said. The news of the deal with Iraq followed signs that Moscow is maintaining or even increasing its cooperation with Iran and North Korea. Along with Iraq, those two countries make up what President Bush has labeled the ``axis of evil'' because of their efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Last month, Russia announced a 10-year plan for nuclear cooperation with Iran. Under the plan, Russia would build another five reactors in addition to the one currently under construction at Bushehr. Washington fears such cooperation could help Iran develop nuclear weapons. This week, the Kremlin announced that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il will visit Russia later in August for the second summer in a row. 08/17/02 08:15 EDT Copyright 2002 The Associated Press

To: Alighieri who wrote (149864)	8/18/2002 1:05:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570118

I'm not joking at all. If your post was not so serious I would have thought you where joking. The evidence of Saddam's WMD program has been out there ever since the Gulf War, actually some of it was public before that. Tim

To: Alighieri who wrote (149864)	8/18/2002 1:35:19 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570118

If there was clear evidence, the administration would be beaming it on every TV channel of every nation. I'm not sure what you expect; anytime detailed information like this is disclosed you compromise to some extent your intelligence. When the time comes, I think it is clear that the Administration will make available such information as is necessary to bring others on board; it is premature at this point. It is also premature for these critics to be making any statements of their position on these matters. Lastly, what is the evidence that Saddam would use it against us? (1) Is it a prerequisite that WE be the target before we get involved, or would the threat, for example, against Israel be adequate from your perspective? (2) It is inconceivable to anyone who has paid attention for the last 10 years that Saddam would not use WMD against us provided (a) he has them and (b) he has a delivery method. It is almost as though you think we should wait and see. Is that your thinking -- let Saddam use a WMD against, for example, NYC or DC, then we'll "pay him back good"? Call me crazy, but this really doesn't seem like a sensible plan to me.