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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Investor Clouseau who wrote (19125)	10/13/2002 12:09:18 AM
From: Richnorth	Respond to of 27734

Oct 13, 2002 US plans military rule of Iraq US commanders would establish stability and oversee transition to an elected civilian govt, which could take time WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is developing a detailed plan, modelled on America's post-war occupation of Japan, to install a United States-led military government in Iraq if President Saddam Hussein is toppled, senior administration officials have disclosed. US commanders would be responsible for establishing stability and overseeing the transformation of the country to an elected civilian government - a process that could take months or years. They would yield authority to the Iraqis only when an electoral system had been installed and the search for weapons of mass destruction was well underway. In contemplating an occupation, the Bush administration is scaling back the initial role for Iraqi opposition figures and group, most of them living in exile. Until now it had been assumed that these Iraqi dissidents would form a government. But it was never clear when they would take full control. Officials clearly want to avoid the kind of chaos and in-fighting that plagued Afghanistan after the defeat of the Taleban. President George W. Bush's aides said they want full control over Iraq while American-led forces carry out their principal mission: Finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction. And for as long as the US and possible coalition partners administer Iraq, they would also essentially control the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, nearly 11 per cent of the total. The disclosure of an emerging US plan, which also calls for war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders, could be part of an effort to warn Iraq's generals of an unpleasant future if they still support Mr Saddam. The plan would see Iraq governed initially by a US commander - perhaps General Tommy Franks, head of US forces in the Persian Gulf, or one of his subordinates. They would assume a role that General Douglas MacArthur served in Japan after its surrender in 1945. One senior official said the administration was 'coalescing around' the concept after discussions of options with Mr Bush and his top aides. But this official and others cautioned that the plan had not been formally approved yet and it was not clear if allies had been consulted on it. Secretary of State Colin Powell confirmed in a National Public Radio interview on Friday that one model being considered is the post-World War II occupation of Japan. Another is the post-war occupation of Germany. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer did not provide direct confirmation of the plan but said on Friday: 'The administration is working to find ways to help achieve stability for Iraq and the region.' The Bush administration's policy is that the Iraqi leader must be removed from office. Details of the occupation scenario comes at a time when the administration is negotiating a compromise at the United Nations that officials say may fall short of an explicit authorisation to use force. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said member states want a two-stage approach proposed by France: Send in the inspectors, and if they get into trouble, then a second resolution will be passed. -- New York Times, Washington Post, AP

To: Investor Clouseau who wrote (19125)	10/13/2002 12:48:07 AM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27734

IC re: w is losing patience with muslims......wackos are the problem. maybe true but why is it that when president wants to take care of "wackos" the muslim countries are unified in their defense? why is it muslim countries are so unified in defense of the terrorists like arafat?