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 : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (2735)	10/27/2002 10:21:31 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 8683

Business - Reuters Little Effect Seen from Short Iraq War Sun Oct 27, 3:43 PM ET By Andrea Ricci URL: story.news.yahoo.com NEW YORK (Reuters) - A quick, decisive war in Iraq would barely affect the U.S. economy, but a drawn-out conflict with a sustained rise in oil prices could cut growth in 2003 by a percentage point, a Reuters poll of economists found. The survey of 20 economists found, on average, that a conflict in Iraq which was decisively resolved in less than a month and did not spark a lasting rise in oil prices would add a negligible 0.01 percentage point to U.S. growth next year. The forecasts ranged from a 1 percentage point addition to GDP (news - web sites) growth, largely attributed to higher government spending and lower oil prices, to a 1 percentage point subtraction due to depressed consumer spending and squeezed corporate profit margins. "It's tricky," said Chris Rupkey, senior financial economist at Bank of Tokyo/Mitsubishi. "If the government ramps up military expenditures, it could offset whatever decline we see in business and investment spending. "But as in most of these external shocks, it's better to be cautious in forecasting, simply because there is no way of knowing," he said, echoing a sentiment expressed by a number of participants. A war on Iraq has been variously estimated as potentially costing the United States between $50 billion and $200 billion. White House officials have called estimates premature. If a conflict were still unresolved after six months and Brent oil prices were to hover around $40 per barrel for a month or longer, the cost to the U.S. economy would be greater, on the order of one percentage point, the poll found. The range of forecasts here was far wider, with the estimated fall ranging from 0.3 to 3.0 percentage points. Brent, which rose to nearly $30 in September, has slipped to around $26/$27 as worries of an imminent war with Iraq have abated. U.S. SEEKS SUPPORT The United States accuses Iraq of developing weapons of mass destruction, and has been pushing its fellow members of the United Nation's Security Council to compel Iraq to dismantle its weapons, by force if necessary. Other Security Council members have balked at giving the United States carte blanche to attack Iraq, and the latest U.S. proposals to the United Nations (news - web sites) drop explicit authorization to use force against Iraq while also demanding tougher weapons inspections. Washington has said it could still strike Iraq at any time in self defense and without U.N. approval. Polls show Americans support military action against Iraq, but a vast majority believe it is important to get support from European allies and from the United Nations before taking action. In a Reuters poll of 22 defense and Middle East experts, 13 said a U.S. invasion of Iraq with United Nations backing was likely or very likely within the next six months. Most expected the conflict would start in January or February and last no more than three months. Most of the economists surveyed said they had factored a conflict with Iraq into forecasts for 2003 U.S. growth, with the majority of these assuming a war lasting between one and three months and subtracting modestly from growth. On average, the 20 economists surveyed forecast GDP growth of 3.2 percent in 2003, with no appreciable difference between those economists which had factored a conflict with Iraq into their forecasts and those who hadn't. Most expected an Iraq conflict to have only a modest impact on consumer spending, which in 2002 was the bright spot in an economy crimped by steep declines in stock prices, listless jobs growth and a flagging industrial sector. The economy is expected to grow some 3 percent this year. HOW LONG? For those respondents who said they expected a short conflict to add to U.S. growth, most pointed to the anticipated increases in government spending and the likelihood that oil prices, which to some degree have priced in a war already, would fall if hostilities were short lived. "If it were resolved quickly...I would expect oil in the $18 to $20 dollar range. And that could be a positive for growth," said Bill Quan, economist at Mizuho Securities. Economists said the ramifications for the economy of a longer-term conflict were far more difficult to predict. The longer hostilities persist, the more likely oil prices would rise and consumer and business confidence would fall. Then there was the possibility that U.S. military action in Iraq could escalate, or provoke violence elsewhere. "Generally speaking, the economic impact on the U.S. is likely to be very small," said Ed McKelvey, economist at Goldman, Sachs and Co. "But if there are more terrorist attacks, then it could get far, far worse."

To: calgal who wrote (2735)	10/28/2002 10:16:23 AM
From: lorne	Respond to of 8683

Iraq, Arafat, bin Laden coalition formed? Terrorism expert reports joint offensive against West planned October 28, 2002 Iraq's Saddam Hussein's defense against an imminent attack by the U.S. will be a strong offense – including terrorist operations coordinated with Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden, writes a top terrorism expert in a new book. Yossef Bodansky, author of "The High Cost of Peace," says joint preparations by Hussein, Arafat and al-Qaida for a new wave of anti-U.S. terror began last spring. The model for the terrorism campaign is Arafat's Black September Organization of the 1970s. The initiative for the alliance came from Palestinian Islamists based in Lebanon and Syria, according to Bodansky, the U.S. Congress' top terrorism adviser. The response from al-Qaida came April 2, says Bodansky. "A group calling itself the bin Laden Brigades-Palestine issued a statement formally integrating the Islamist and Fatah wave of anti-Israel terrorism into bin Laden's global jihad," he writes in his new book. "The bin Laden Brigades announced that their forces were now at the disposal of 'Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and fighter commander Marwan al-Barghouti' to fight 'alongside the Brigades' fighters and the Islamic factions.' The statement emphasized that numerous Palestinian factions, specifically including al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, '[had] become part of the International Front for Fighting Jews and Christians, led by Osama bin Laden.' They now '[had] found the path of Islam and adopted the line of genuine resistance of the jihad movement and Islamic resistance, that is the path of jihad and martyrdom for the sake of God, and discarded forever the lies of the alleged peace and the myths of negotiations.'" The anti-U.S. coalition also includes Hamas and Islamic Jihad. A communique issued on April 2 from the Unified Leadership of the Intifadah – an umbrella organization representing Arafat's Fatah groups, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other members of the Palestine Liberation Organization – called for attacks on U.S. interests. "The United States is backing the Israeli assault on the Palestinians," it said. "Therefore, U.S. facilities, targets and interests throughout the world should be harmed." Unit 999 of Iraqi intelligence has helped train both Arafat's shock troops and bin Laden's Islamists for suicide operations utilizing weapons of mass destruction. According to bin Laden's book, some of these terrorists have already "succeeded in infiltrating several Arab countries. They are provided with instructions, secret codes and advanced weapons." According to Israeli sources, the Iraqis permitted the terrorist trainees to test chemical weapons in southern Kurdistan. Meanwhile, Christian Weber, a contributing editor of DefenseWatch, warns of gaps in U.S. war planning with regard to a pre-emptive and offensive strike by Hussein's forces. He predicts Hussein will order a two-pronged invasion of Jordan and Kuwait, rather than focus his forces on defending his country. "Over 65 percent of the Jordanian population is Palestinian," he writes. "Hussein would be counting on their rising up to support him during an invasion." Could such a plan account for the underlying significance of the Black September-style plans of Arafat, bin Laden and Hussein? Black September was the final phase of a war between Arafat's forces and those of Jordan in 1970. "Iraq would be seeking an opportunity to turn the war into a regional conflict," writes Weber. "Hussein would attempt to draw Syria into the conflict against Israel, as well as fomenting destabilizing fundamentalist uprisings in West-leaning Egypt, Yemen and Turkey if they side against Iraq." Weber predicts such an attack on Jordan would involve a chemical component. He even suggests there is a likely time period for such an attack – between Nov. 5 and Dec. 4, the lunar month of Ramadan. "The Iraqi army is built for offense," he says. "When war is imminent, they push out on the southern and western fronts. The Iraqi military maneuvers cyclically have trained for assaults into Jordan and Kuwait." Asked why Iraq would betray its traditional ally in Jordan, Weber responded: "Hussein will sacrifice the goodwill of the Hashemite kingdom for a strategic gamble." worldnetdaily.com