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: FaultLine who wrote (58420)	11/22/2002 9:43:49 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Ze'ev Schiff does some interesting analysis of current Iraqi and American deployments and what it's all likely to mean to Israel. He includes some information that I haven't seen before. Excerpt: Washington scored an impressive diplomatic victory in the UN Security Council when that body unanimously voted in favor of the resolution regarding the inspection demands with which Iraq must comply. For its part, Israel has grave doubts as to whether the inspection activities by themselves will prove successful if the state being inspected has no desire to discard its weapons of mass destruction. This position is championed by Gideon Frank, director general of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, who does, however, point out that even a flawed inspection procedure might slow up, and raise the cost of, Iraq's nuclear armament program. There is also the possibility that Iraq will again be found guilty of deception, in which case the American wheels of war will again begin to turn against it. Preparing for war We now find ourselves in a diplomatic moratorium. This fact is obvious to both American military personnel and the Iraqi generals. From their standpoint, this is a time-out period, rather than a real transition to diplomatic moves. Evidence of this can be found in various satellite photos. It is clear that both sides are preparing for war. The Iraqi army is building defense lines in the field. American aerial photographs indicate that the Iraqi military deployment consists of three principal lines of defense that will meet an American ground offensive. The deployment comprises primarily divisions of the Republican Guard. The first defense line, which is the most distant from the capital of Baghdad and is located in western Iraq, faces Jordan but is at a considerable distance from the Jordanian-Iraqi border. The second line, which is located behind the first and is closer to Baghdad, is situated between Iraq's two major lakes. Here as well, several Republican Guard divisions are deployed. The second line is west of Karbala and Baghdad. Between the two lines, the Iraqis are deploying their medium-range missile brigades. (In accordance with a Security Council resolution, Iraq is allowed to have medium-range missiles in its arsenal.) The third defense line is closest to the capital. The Iraqis were in no hurry to deploy military forces within Baghdad itself for the purpose of deterring the Americans from engaging in combat in built-up areas in the midst of civilian population centers. According to the Iraqis, American ground forces will find it extremely difficult to penetrate built-up areas and will sustain the level of casualty rates the U.S. suffered in Vietnam. This is, of course, an exaggeration. From the security standpoint, Israel is mainly interested in the line in western Iraq, where the Iraqis can launch Al-Hussein missiles with a range of over 600 kilometers. Moreover, one cannot rule out the possibility that the Iraqis may have a small number of Al-Abbas missiles with a potential range of up to 900 kms. The Americans are well aware of all this information and are not sitting around twiddling their thumbs. They have recently reinforced Israel's position with a serious improvement in the missile-detection early-warning system and are also offering to provide Israel with reinforcements in the form of advanced Patriot missile batteries, which the Israel Air Force wants to see deployed in the field. Facing Iraq are three centers. Before the fighting starts, a large number of special forces will be dispatched to these centers - the one that is located in a large area of Kuwait, the second that is situated in the northern Kurdish region, and the third center, which is to be established from the direction of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Has the war been shelved by the transition to a new diplomatic phase, and by the fact that the new timetable will be dictated not just by President Bush but also by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and by Saddam Hussein? Regarding this point, the prestige of President Bush is on the line: He has repeatedly stated - and is backed up here by massive support in the U.S. Congress - that he will use military force if Iraq does not comply with the ultimatum concerning weapons of mass destruction. Essentially, the president's prestige will hinge on his ability to bring about the removal of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq - one way or another. Some people are now claiming that, in any event, Bush is determined to find a pretext for an offensive, while others argue that the diplomatic phase has opened a window of opportunity that could postpone the war indefinitely haaretzdaily.com

To: FaultLine who wrote (58420)	11/22/2002 11:02:55 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

It is a huge dilemma, FL. We are hammered from both the outside, and the inside. OBL has said he WILL KILL AMERICANS. Anyone with ears willing and able to hear knows that. He has said this for about 10 years now. Our Government finally has believed OBL is serious and is actively engaged now in stopping terrorism wherever possible. Part of the problem is that there seem to be many in the US that are now saying...."well, we can't stop everything from happening in the US and to US interests as well as Allies...." BUT are these some of the same people that are the first to accuse and say by innuendo that the Government should have done more to save lives from terrorists.....??? Look at the news articles and opinions since 9-11. We all can see who is saying what. (i.e. some politicians, past and present.... or lawyers suing the airlines for the 9-11 events...ad nauseaum....) Where do we draw the line in trying to protect US citizens and those who are documented visitors to our country? How much protection is enough? Even there, however, we still have constraints: inspecting all the shipping containers for example -- simply not in the realm of political, fiscal, and economic possibility.