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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (47380)	9/27/2002 1:27:29 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 281500

Polls generally show that worry over Iraq has risen sharply in the nation as a whole, and in some surveys the issue of war and peace has replaced the economy as voters' top concern. Elections weigh on Iraq debate Partisan battling between Democrats and Bush may slow war-resolution vote in Congress – and consensus at UN. By Peter Grier and Linda Feldmann \| Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON – This week's surge of partisan squabbling over national security policy in Washington is due in part to frustration among some Democratic leaders that the possibility of war with Iraq has likely become the top concern of voters as crucial midterm elections draw near. Democrats have long thought that for them to maintain control of the Senate and win back the House, voters would have to be most worried about economic issues – particularly corporate malfeasance and the falling stock market. But in political terms, guns now appear to have trumped butter, as the Bush administration's push for a resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq has dominated the congressional agenda at a key moment in the fall campaign. Coverage of the drums of war fills the media, day after day. If nothing else, the outburst of vitriol could slow progress toward a war approval vote – perhaps jeopardizing, in turn, the Bush administration's push to reach a consensus in the UN Security Council on the course of Iraq policy. And it has exposed a split in the Democratic Party itself, with some rank-and-file members frustrated that there hasn't been more criticism of what they see as a rush to confront Saddam Hussein. "I guess [the squabbling] was predictable," says Lee Hamilton, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center and a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "The election is approaching, tensions are rising, and the issues are difficult." How the squabbling began The round of argument began with a speech by 2000 Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore in San Francisco earlier this week, in which he charged that the Bush administration had politicized the Iraq debate by pushing for a war resolution vote prior to the November elections. Then Wednesday the normally restrained Senate majority leader, Sen. Tom Daschle (D) of South Dakota, launched into a dais-thumping floor speech in which he demanded an apology from President Bush for words that Mr. Daschle felt questioned the patriotism of some Democrats. On Monday, in a speech in Trenton New Jersey, Mr. Bush had complained that differences over labor regulations were stalling Senate work on a bill establishing the new homeland security department. "The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people," said Bush. Daschle's complaint was followed by a round of rejoinders from Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and others, sending the whole issue into a tit-for-tat swirl. The president's language in his Trenton speech was indeed "a little loose," judges Mr. Hamilton, himself a former chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee. But whether the words constituted an over-the-top slur is debatable. And astute professional politicians such as Daschle should arguably be wary of engaging in, and then prolonging, such a flammable argument. In Washington, as a general rule, "if you get into the motivations of your adversary, it almost invariably gets you nowhere," says Hamilton. In part Daschle may simply be reflecting his own party's general angst. In midsummer it appeared as if the fall election debate might break the Democrats' way, as the implosion of Enron, WorldCom, and other corporations was followed by pictures of executives led away in handcuffs. Furthermore the stock market suffered triple-digit losses by the day. The stock market remains in a slump, but it doesn't dominate headlines. The onrushing confrontation with Iraq has replaced it, especially since Bush's speech to the UN challenging the world body to make President Hussein comply with past resolutions. Polls generally show that worry over Iraq has risen sharply in the nation as a whole, and in some surveys the issue of war and peace has replaced the economy as voters' top concern. The latest round of argument "is Democrats expressing their deep frustration over their inability to get any traction against the administration with [the political issues of] the falling stock market and sinking economy and depleted 401(k)s," says Marshall Wittmann, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington. Internal Democratic debate Mr. Gore's speech may also have sparked an internal Democratic Party debate that Daschle felt compelled to join. Some prominent party leaders, such as House minority leader Richard Gephardt (D) of Missouri and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) of Connecticut, have taken hawkish stances toward a possible Iraq intervention. In the Senate, the Democratic leadership was moving quickly toward a tough war resolution – partly to get the vote over with as soon as possible. Yet internal party surveys show at least one-third of Democratic lawmakers in Congress as opposed to war in Iraq, and this faction has felt it is being muzzled. Many Democratic activists – who will be key players in the 2004 presidential primary process – feel likewise. "The Democrats are in a very awkward position because the leadership seems to want to take the issue off the table ... [and] the Democratic grass roots clearly doesn't feel that way," says Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (47380)	9/27/2002 1:27:57 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

America Hides In " Irrelevance " During UN Vote. Asks UN to TAKE ACTION!! -- Unless we don't want you to. Annan Deplores Israeli Attack, Fears Consequences Last Updated: September 26, 2002 11:03 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan deplores Thursday's Israeli missile attack in Gaza City that killed two Palestinians and wounded more than 25 others and is very worried about possible consequences, his spokesman said. Annan "calls on the government of Israel to halt such actions and conduct itself in a manner that is fully consistent with international humanitarian law, under which Israel has a clear responsibility to protect the lives of civilians," chief U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said. The attack, in which missiles were fired from helicopters, took place in a heavily populated civilian area and at least a dozen children were among those wounded, Eckhard said. Mohammad Deif, the commander of the military wing of the Islamic group Hamas and the apparent target of the attack, was injured but his life was not in danger, Hamas sources told Reuters. Israeli security sources, however, said Deif was believed dead. The attack came three days after the 15-nation U.N. Security Council approved a resolution demanding "the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction." in the Middle East. The resolution, approved 14-0 with the United States abstaining, also underlined the need to protect civilians. "The secretary-general is deeply concerned about the possible consequences of this attack," Eckhard said.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (47380)	9/27/2002 1:58:41 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Fighting Street to Street By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Columnist The New York Times September 27, 2002 BASRA, Iraq — To understand why an invasion of Iraq may not be the cakewalk that the White House expects, pay $20 (round trip) and board an Iraqi Airways flight that soars from Baghdad straight through the American-enforced "no-flight zone" to Basra on the southern tip of Iraq. American war planes are authorized to shoot down any aircraft that venture into it, but the Iraqis around me were cool as ice. They knew that U.S. fighters would never attack a civilian aircraft, insha'allah, and that the U.S. military could only bluster. "Sometimes the American Awacs planes warn us on the radio," explained an Iraqi pilot who was amused at my anxiety. "They say, `You are entering a no-fly zone and must turn around.' We reply, `This is Iraqi air space and we're going to fly through it.' " That American restraint is Iraq's ace going into war. Iraq knows that the United States cannot bomb schools, mosques and residential neighborhoods, and so it has plenty of places to hide its army. In the last gulf war, we were able to destroy an enemy that was out in the open desert, but this time Iraq seems intent on a different approach. From Basra I drove to the Kuwait border on the "highway of death," to see how Iraq will guard what may be a principal invasion route for American troops. The only military presence was a few guards on the edge of Basra, amounting to what you'd expect at the entrance to an urban U.S. high school. So does this mean that Iraq is poorly prepared for an invasion? I don't think so. Instead of protecting its borders, Iraq will hide its army within its cities, where air strikes are effective only at an unacceptable (for America) cost in civilian deaths. Saddam has a hiding place for himself that is better than Osama bin Laden's caves at Tora Bora: the teeming city of Baghdad, with five million inhabitants, where he already never spends two consecutive nights in the same place. "The Americans are good at bombing," one Iraqi official mused. "But some day, they will have to come to the ground. And then we'll be waiting. Every Iraqi has a gun in his house, often a Kalashnikov. And every Iraqi has experience in fighting. So let's see how the Americans do when they're fighting in our streets." That could be a nightmare. As the last gulf war showed, a bombing campaign can knock out bridges and barracks, but unless we're incredibly lucky, we won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces. We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground — which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier. Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly seven million more in Al Quds militia. Karar Hassan, a 22-year-old member of the militia in the city of Najaf, said he had just completed a training session in street fighting, including fighting house to house and even from trees. "I'll fight them till my last drop of blood," he added, in the kind of boast that is heard everywhere in Iraq. "If someone tries to threaten us, we know how to respond," said a farmer named Hakim al-Khal in the bazaar of Karbala, and then he reached under his shirt and brandished a handgun. Most Iraqis seem to have no love for Saddam, and the great majority will probably spend the war hiding under their beds. But if even a tiny proportion of the braggarts are serious, then look out. Moreover, some tribes are armed with mortars and large-caliber machine guns, so that even if they could not stop tanks rolling through to Baghdad, they could seriously hurt an American army of occupation. Perhaps the American invasion will be a breeze after all. The Iraqi army is less than half the strength it was when it crumpled in a 100-hour ground war a decade ago, and U.S. forces are much stronger now. But if we're going to invade, we need to prepare for a worst-case scenario involving street-to-street fighting, with farmers like Mr. Khal taking potshots at our troops. Is America really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years? nytimes.com