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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stephen O who wrote (89691)	9/17/2002 8:32:56 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116790

Thanks for the article. It was a good and interesting read. But, unfortunately, the writer was probably a self-serving asshole, a born sycophant or paid propagandist or all of these combined into one. He gave Bush too much credit. He ignored the fact that Dubya has had the help of think-tanks and advisors galore of every ilk and description. One cannot help but think that Iraq is apparently "capitulating" to Bush's demands because some secret deals (read bribery and whatnot have been afoot and made). And all this was "achieved" for the sake of lifting the markets and the economy!!!! which is of paramount importance in Bush's agenda. If Iraq remains tough, then it's war and this will give a fillip to the U.S. economy! Now that Iraq has "capitulated", folks feel better about the future. This can only be good for the economy. BTW, the markets in Asia have turned upwards at the news of Iraq agreeing to inspections. There is always more than what meets the eye, my friend! Things aren't always what they seem to be. Oh yea! It's a "victory" for Bush, all right. P.S. Part or all of the bribery might have come from some Arab countries, including Iran. Iraq's neighbours certainly would not like the horrors of war to revisit their part of the world. Maybe some Arabs like to think they are "buying" time to consolidate........

To: Stephen O who wrote (89691)	9/17/2002 9:00:16 PM
From: Richnorth	Respond to of 116790

Arms inspections only serve to delay war which is inevitable for all the justifiable reasons the U.S. can come up with. =============================== Arms inspections doomed to fail By GARY MILHOLLIN and KELLY MOTZ MANY voices are now calling for renewed United Nations inspections in Iraq. Some belong to critics of the Bush administration who are opposed to war. Others belong to those who favour war but see inspections, which they fully expect to fail, as the needed triggering event for war. Whatever one's stance on how best to handle Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, it is crucial to understand one thing: UN inspections, as they are currently constituted, will never work. There are several reasons for this. Consider the record of the UN Special Commission (Unscom), an agency that was charged with inspecting Iraq's weapons programmes from 1991 to 1998. While it did manage to destroy tonnes of missiles, and chemical and biological weapons, it could not complete the job. Iraqi obfuscation prevented it from getting a full picture of the entire weapons-production effort. The commission's replacement, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic), which has not yet been allowed to enter Iraq, will have even less success given its structure and policies. Unscom was staffed mainly by officials on loan from national governments who did not owe their jobs to the UN. Unmovic personnel, on the other hand, are UN employees who are likely to be hobbled by its notoriously inefficient bureaucracy. These inspectors are not set up to make effective use of intelligence information. In the 1990s, American intelligence officials supplied secret information to selected Unscom inspectors, knowing that the information would be protected and be used to uncover hidden Iraqi weapons facilities. At Unmovic, however, no inspector will be allowed to receive intelligence information on a privileged basis. Unmovic has also declared that it will not allow any information gathered from its inspections to flow back to national intelligence agencies. Even if it is allowed into Iraq, Unmovic will run up against obstacles at least as formidable as those that stymied Unscom. After years of practice, Unscom became adept at launching surprise visits to weapons sites, yet Iraq's intelligence operatives defeated it more often than not. It was a rare inspection when the Iraqis did not know what the inspectors were looking for before they arrived. Most Unmovic inspectors have little experience in Iraq and even less in handling intelligence information. Compounding this handicap is the fact that Iraq has taken considerable pains to make its weapons programmes mobile. Laboratories, components and materials are ready to hit the road at a moment's notice. Unmovic is also stuck with a deal the UN made in 1998 on 'presidential sites'. Iraq is allowed to designate vast swathes of land that the inspectors can visit only after announcing its arrival in advance, disclosing the composition of the inspection team (nuclear or biological experts, for example) and taking along a special group of diplomats. New inspections will occur under the threat of imminent American military action. Any announcement that Iraq is not cooperating could be a casus belli. Such a risk might encourage Unmovic to monitor what is already known rather than try to find what is hidden. This could mean that the goal of inspections - the disarmament of Iraq - might never be achieved. Which brings us to the heart of the matter. Inspections can do only one thing well: verify that a country's declarations about a weapons programme are honest and complete. It is feasible for inspectors to look at sites and equipment to see whether the official story about their use is accurate. It is a different proposition altogether to wander about a country looking for what has been deliberately concealed. For inspectors to do their job, they have to have the truth, which can come only from the Iraqis. As President George W. Bush told the UN last week, the world needs an Iraqi government that will stop lying and surrender the weapons programmes. That is not likely as long as Mr Saddam remains in power. Gary Milhollin is director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. Kelly Motz is the editor of IraqWatch.org. They contributed this comment to The New York Times.

To: Stephen O who wrote (89691)	9/17/2002 9:06:05 PM
From: Richnorth	Respond to of 116790

A decade of deception makes US wary Iraq's offer to allow arms inspectors is dismissed by US which says Saddam is full of tricks and will deceive the UN team DUBAI - More than a decade of bitter accusations, lies and even gunshots directed at inspectors have marked previous attempts at carrying out weapons checks in Iraq, a past United Nations inspections team said. The Bush administration has been quick to use this to dismiss the Iraqi offer for inspectors to return unconditionally as a 'tactic' similar to manoeuvres Baghdad had made in the past to divide the UN and delay action. Advertisement 'This is a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong UN Security Council action. Therefore, it is a tactic that will fail,' said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. 'It is time for the Security Council to act.' US President George W. Bush said he still wants a new UN Security Council resolution that will actually deal with the threat that he says Mr Saddam Hussein poses to the Iraqi people, the region and the world. If precedent is anything to go by, Washington's concern that the readmission of the inspectors themselves will not solve the issue gains some justification. Neither the Iraqi regime nor the UN inspection teams have emerged from eight years of tussles over the disarmament question with much distinction. Former chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler, while welcoming Iraq's decision, warned that Baghdad could not be trusted. Mr Butler, who headed the UN Special Commission on disarmament (Unscom), said Iraq had previously built 'a wall of deceit and concealment' to block inspections and may attempt to do the same again. 'This job can be done if the Iraqis allow it to be done,' he added. 'If it won't, then we are going to have a very serious crisis on our hands.' Unscom concluded that Baghdad had lied repeatedly and failed to reveal the full extent of its ability to produce missiles with a range of more than 150 km. Unscom toiled sometimes under appalling conditions that included a grenade attack on its headquarters and Iraqi gunfire on its inspectors. Iraq also tried to block the inspectors from visiting Mr Saddam's palaces and the headquarters of the ruling Baath party. The maelstrom of claims and counter-claims show inspectors were a long way from being able to certify that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed. The International Atomic Energy Agency, found no evidence by late 1998 that Iraq had produced nuclear arms. In addition, Unscom confessed it failed to account for Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programmes. It concluded that information provided by Iraq on production, militarisation and destruction of biological weapons could not be credible and could not be verified. On his part, President Saddam Hussein branded Unscom as a 'nest of spies' and gained some support as evidence emerged of collusion among some inspectors, the US and Israel. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was forced to admit that Iraq had a case and Unscom was disbanded. It remains unclear if the new arms inspection body, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic), can make a breakthrough in investigations. Mr Hans Blix, head of Unmovic, said on Sunday that arms monitors could start work within two weeks. 'First we would have to reach some practical agreements with Iraq on how the inspections would be carried out. Then we would send an exploratory mission,' he told the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper. However, he said it would take more than three weeks to ascertain if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction because 'it's such a big country and there are more than 700 sites to inspect'. --AFP

To: Stephen O who wrote (89691)	9/22/2002 9:07:58 PM
From: Richnorth	Respond to of 116790

Iraq makes U-turn on UN weapons checks BAGHDAD - A week after agreeing to unconditional United Nations weapons inspections, Iraq has reversed course. It now says it would not allow them entry to key presidential compounds, a move dismissed by United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as another attempt to 'jerk' the UN around. Baghdad's latest gambit came as the Bush administration was preparing for a week of intense lobbying both at home and at the UN to win passage of at least one resolution needed to confront Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over his alleged failure to surrender weapons of mass destruction. But even as the administration was pursuing a diplomatic course, it was also fine-tuning military plans in the event Iraq failed to cooperate. Observers said the Iraqi announcement on Saturday, which followed a meeting between Mr Saddam and his top officials, could further complicate delicate diplomatic efforts to avoid the use of force. 'Iraq declared it will not deal with any new resolution that contradicts what has been agreed upon with the UN,' the Iraqi government said in a brief announcement read on state radio. 'American officials are trying...to issue new, bad resolutions from the Security Council,' the statement added. Saturday's move appeared to be an attempt to undermine a sweeping and tough new UN resolution expected to be circulated today at the Security Council by the US and Britain. That resolution would charge UN teams with checking any and all sites suspected of having information on nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. It would also, in effect, scrap any past compromises. The Iraqi statement referred particularly to a 1998 agreement between Baghdad and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Iraq's sprawling presidential compounds, which have many facilities besides Saddam's personal palaces. For seven years, Baghdad refused entry to the facilities on the grounds that such inspections would infringe on Iraq's sovereignty. A compromise in 1998 gave inspectors access, but only if they were accompanied by an array of diplomats - a deal that prolonged the process and gave Iraq a new channel of appeal, according to former weapons inspectors. Responding to the Iraqi announcement, Mr Rumsfeld said Baghdad's latest ploy was not unexpected. 'Anyone who has watched the past decade would have seen the Iraqi government change its position depending on what they felt was tactically advantageous to them, and kind of jerk the UN around,' he said in an interview on CNN. Meanwhile, at an international energy meeting in Osaka yesterday, attended by officials from about 70 countries, the European Union backed the US in a dispute over high oil prices, saying Washington's talk of waging war in Iraq was not to blame for the recent increase which saw a barrel of crude brushing near US$30 (S$53), the highest in 19 months. Many producers from the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries blame the high prices on Washington's war rhetoric. -- Wire agencies