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 (3175)	12/19/2002 9:17:01 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 8683

U.N. Ambassador Decries 'One More Act of Deception' URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73456,00.html Thursday, December 19, 2002 UNITED NATIONS — Iraq is in "material breach" of the U.N.'s order that it destroy its weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Thursday. U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte said Iraq's 12,000-page arms declaration "is just one more act of deception in a history of lies from a defiant dictator." He said that "material omissions" in the declaration "constitute another material breach." The use of the term "material breach" is significant, because it can be used as justification to go to war. U.S. officials, however, have said that using the term at this stage does not signify that an attack is imminent. "We informed the [Security] Council that we were deeply disappointed," Negroponte said after Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix delivered a preliminary briefing on its findings to the 15 council members. "The Dec. 7 declaration clearly shows that Iraq has spurned its last opportunity.... The declaration fails to address scores of questions pending since 1998. It seeks to deceive when it says Iraq has no ongoing weapons of mass destruction programs." Negroponte said Iraq was "falling back on the regime's practice of omissions, evasions and untruths," and said most of the 12,000 pages in its declaration were "simply rehash." The ambassador spoke after Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, provided the Security Council with initial assessments of Iraq's declaration. Iraq's deputy U.N. Ambassador Munim Al-Kadhe dismissed the U.S. charges as "baseless," saying: "I would like to confirm that the Iraqi declaration is complete and comprehensive." He said it can be verified on the ground by U.N. inspectors. But Blix noted inconsistencies in the biological area, noting that the latest report did not include a table that Iraq submitted previously. "This table has been omitted from the current declaration and the reasons for the omission need to be explained," Blix told the council, according to his briefing notes. Also, he said Iraq was using chemical equipment destroyed by inspectors before they left in December 1998 and was developing a missile known as the Al Samoud with a range, in 13 flight tests, that exceeded the range permitted under U.N. resolutions. ElBaradei said Iraq needed to provide answers and evidence regarding Iraq's recent purchase of aluminum tubes. The top U.N. nuclear inspector also found little new in the 12,000-page declaration. The Bush administration is denouncing gaps, omissions and other major troubles with the Iraqi weapons declaration, setting the United States on a course to possible war with Saddam Hussein early next year. Speaking after the meeting, both Blix and ElBaradei complained about the quality of Iraq's report. "An opportunity was missed in the declaration to give a lot of evidence," Blix said. "They can still provide it orally, but it would have been better if it was in the declaration." ElBaradei noted that the Iraqis have been opening doors for inspectors on the ground but said: "We have not gotten what we need in terms of additional evidence." The comments were based on initial assessments, and both men said they would need more time to review the entire declaration. In Baghdad, Iraqi officials said it was the United States, and not Iraq, that needed to worry about the assessments. "It's the other party that's worried because there's nothing to pin on us," Iraqi general Amir al-Saadi said. He said it was natural U.N. experts would see little new in the declaration because Iraq hasn't restarted weapons programs in the time since their last declarations. Assistant Secretary of State John Wolf and Negroponte met Blix on Tuesday to discuss gaps in the declaration, and Negroponte had another meeting with the chief inspector on Wednesday. In preparing its declaration, Iraq had a list of outstanding questions prepared by the former U.N. inspection agency and by an international panel of experts. Inspectors left Baghdad in December 1998 and Iraq barred them from returning until last month. The unanswered questions included: How much anthrax did Iraq actually produce, and was it all destroyed as Baghdad claims? Where are 550 artillery shells that it filled with mustard gas? Why were no remnants found of warheads for 50 long-range missiles that Iraq said it destroyed? What happened to all the deadly VX nerve agent that Iraq produced? The report by former chief inspector Richard Butler listed biological agents Iraq produced including deadly botulinum toxin, anthrax and ricin; gangrene gas, which rots flesh; and aflatoxin, which causes liver cancer. Baghdad also said it did research on rotavirus, which causes diarrhea; and hemorrhage conjunctivitis virus, which effects the eyes. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

To: calgal who wrote (3175)	12/19/2002 11:20:51 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 8683

December 18, 2002 -- Patrick Bryson: The More Fame Than Brains Alliance Strikes Again URL:http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters_bryson20021218.html Last week group calling itself Artists United to Win Without War gathered to strut their moral superiority in front of the press, while demonstrating to the rest of us that they are morally superior to the fools who advocate a pre-emptive war with Iraq. It was the same tired cast -- Mike Farrell, Martin Sheen, Ed Asner. All these artists are charter member of a group I call the More Fame Than Brains Alliance, the parent organization for AUWWW. Being famous provides MFTBA members with widespread coverage when they speak on sensitive political and guarantees then no responsibility for the words they utter. It’s one of the club’s greatest perks. At the meeting of AUWWW Mike Farrell said, “The media tends to pay attention to our community.” True! Of course the media pays great attention to two headed sheep, but that doesn’t mean it’s an intelligent occurrence. The question that arises is this: What would we do without these morally superior being letting us know how morally bankrupt the rest of us are? There is, however, a paradox here. Oddly enough, the policies of MFTBA members are a threat to the peace, even though the actors themselves remain relatively benign. There are two ways to avoid war – deterrence or disarmament. Deterrence is a straightforward concept. A nation builds arms and an army of sufficient size and ferocity to frighten a prospective conqueror. Disarmament is when you throw all the weapons away, equip the army with flowers and copies of the book “My Core Beliefs,” by Mike Farrell, and hope prospective aggressors will weep openly and be inspired to goodness. In the history the world, there is not a single documented case where disarmament in the face of aggression prevented a war. Apparently one of two things are happening in the minds of MFTBS members. Either MFTBA members are too naive to understand history, or they are so arrogant that they are willing to risk our national security, not to mention the millions of lives in countries bordering the aggressor, to feed their own egos. There is no third alternative. There is a story told about Winston Churchill just after he was appointed prime minister in May 1940. Pacifist who had advocated disarmament in the face of the Nazi build up had ruled England, at that time. After Churchill took the helm he got into his limousine and accepted his chauffeur’s congratulation. With eyes red from strain and emotion, Churchill replied, “I hope it’s not to late. I am very much afraid that it is.” It almost was. Saddam Hussein may not pose the same threat Hitler did in 1940, but unchecked Hussein still has the ability to kill, perhaps, millions if left to export terrorism and to develop nuclear capabilities. During this meeting of AUWWW the always tiresome Martin Sheen said, “George Bush cannot turn back without losing face. This ought not be about this nation losing face.” Is it possibly to be any more naïve or emotionally simple? Has Sheen been breathing in too much makeup remover? Face and perception means everything in foreign policy. Before World War II Neville Chamberlain let it be understood by Hitler that he would stand on his head and have water poured down his nostrils, while singing “Kick the Queen ‘till She Bleeds” if it would get Hitler to the negotiating table. Hitler never went to England, but Chamberlain went to Europe on a moment’s notice. Hitler sometimes kept him waiting for hours in humiliating circumstances. Contempt for timid leaders, even those commanding impressive armies, is always a factor in war. The policies of MFTBA members are, without a doubt, a threat to peace if widely embraced, but it’s hard to believe they garner a big enough following to be effective. What type of person, meaning a non-actor you see on the street, actually listens when a Martin Sheen or Mike Farrell speaks? Is there actually, say, an accountant who goes home to his wife one night and says, “Mike Farrell thinks war is bad? Where’s my knife. I’m going to scrap the ‘Bush for President’ bumper sticker off our car.” Is there a mechanic somewhere who will break into tears this week and thank Martin Sheen for showing him the light? Will he sob out the words “I’ll never watch the movie ‘Patton’ again.” MFTBA members sway no one with an I.Q. above 30. They only satisfy themselves, their arrogance and their ego. Their policies might be the most perfect recipe for selling the security of this country and the world down the toilet, but they only become a threat if the rest of us regard them with anything more than slight amusement.

To: calgal who wrote (3175)	12/19/2002 11:45:14 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 8683

Pentagon Prepares for Iraq's Vengeance Tactics Friday, December 20, 2002 URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73507,00.html WASHINGTON — Booby-trapped oil fields, exploding chemical and biological weapons and sabotaged food warehouses are all scenarios that Pentagon planners fear may be in Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's last-chance playbook. Now, war planners are evaluating what they must do to prepare for combat if coalition forces go to war. It wouldn't be a surprise, analysts say, if Saddam tried to take a defiant last stand. In 1991, at the end of the Persian Gulf War, Iraq torched Kuwaiti oil fields as his last act of vengeance in the face of imminent defeat against coalition forces. With the U.S. statement Thursday that Iraq is failing to comply with U.N. demands for a complete declaration of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, forces are one step closer to going to war and facing Saddam's treachery. "It should be obvious that the pattern of systematic holes and gaps in Iraq's declaration is not the result of accidents or editing oversights or technical mistakes. These are material omissions that, in our view, constitute another material breach," said Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Iraq is well on its way to losing its last chance," he added. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix is supposed to report on Jan. 27 whether Iraq is cooperating with inspections — not just whether Iraq is providing access whenever and wherever inspectors want, but also whether Iraqi scientists have been provided to U.N. officials to speak freely about programs in the country, and perhaps even be allowed to go abroad. The United States is preparing to give inspectors some of its intelligence information to clue in inspectors on what to ask for and where to look. Officials expect that more material breaches will be found by the January deadline, and Iraq's defiance will have reached a threshold for war. Military planners predict an all-out victory against Iraq, but officials fear that on his way out, Saddam may set oil fields ablaze, disable electrical grids, contaminate water supplies and destroy roads, bridges and communications links. Military analysts agree. "If he suddenly looks up and thinks the military threat is so overwhelming that he's not going to be able to fight it, he's probably going to go ahead and destroy all those things," said retired U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. William Cowan, a Fox News analyst. One former U.N. weapons inspector said that any of the possible methods of destruction won't help Saddam win the war. "There is no tactical gain on the battlefield and there is certainly no political gain for those who participate. So this really can only be seen as an act of vengeance," said former inspector Tim Trevan. Destruction of this magnitude, however, would distract troops during the war and make securing peace afterward much more difficult. "[Saddam] is going to do things that impact terribly on a civilian population that's trying to survive in a war, and the responsibility for their survival will fall quickly on U.S forces," Cowan said. This is only one of two worst-case scenarios. The other is Saddam's possible decision to use chemical and biological weapons against coalition forces, even if it means exposing unprotected Iraqi civilians. "I don't see any scenario where he is going to give up willingly, and military planners, to be on the safe side, it's very important that they assume that those weapons are going to be used. If they're not used, then that's fine. If they are used and we're not prepared, we're going to pay a penalty," Cowan said. War planners don't expect a chemical and biological attack in the early stages of war, but they do say that it could be a last act of deadly vengeance and defiance. Fox News' Major Garrett contributed to this report.

To: calgal who wrote (3175)	12/23/2002 12:05:38 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

Posted 12/22/2002 9:09 PM Updated 12/22/2002 11:20 PM U.S. to give Iraq inspectors photos of 'sanitation activities' By John Diamond, USA TODAY URL:http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-12-22-iraq-photos_x.htm WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence has photographic evidence of Iraq hastily clearing and cleaning suspected weapons sites, raising suspicion the activity is intended to avoid detection of prohibited arms by United Nations inspectors. The satellite imagery is part of what the United States will present to U.N. inspectors this week in an effort to help them track down banned weapons. U.S. officials acknowledge the intelligence is circumstantial but not irrefutable proof that Iraq continues to develop weapons in defiance of U.N. resolutions. "We have good evidence of sanitation activities at various sites: carting away scrap, cleaning up and so forth," said a U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Sharing of satellite imagery with the United Nations marks the latest round of jousting between the administration and the inspection team. The administration wants a faster, more aggressive pace to the inspections. U.N. officials counter that they need help from U.S. and other intelligence agencies to determine where to go to look for prohibited weapons. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and other branches of U.S. intelligence are pooling information that could be shared with the weapons inspectors. While there is no proof the cleanup activity was sinister, the officials said some of the sites were later visited by U.N. inspectors, or are on the list of sites likely to be visited. This is the type of circumstantial evidence that U.S. officials expect to compile over time as they build a case that Iraq has been developing banned chemical and biological weapons. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said he wants detailed information. U.S. and British intelligence officials briefed inspectors on what they suspect the Iraqis are hiding. But Blix told the BBC that the inspectors need information on specific locations. He told CNN the Bush administration should "put the evidence on the table." The Pentagon and CIA say they can't put all their information on the table for fear of compromising intelligence-gathering methods or tipping off the Iraqis to locations that might be the focus of a U.S. military campaign. U.S. intelligence is most concerned about protecting human sources in Iraq who are providing information on Iraqi weapons programs. But the imagery alone may be of limited value. A second intelligence official said the spy satellite photos don't show whether the substances being cleared are related to prohibited Iraqi weapons programs. The scarcity of proof of suspected Iraqi weapons programs is generating some political pressure on the Bush administration. "I would like to at least have the president, who I think is an honest person, look us in the eye and say, 'We have evidence, here it is.' We've never heard the president of the United States say that," Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a possible Democratic presidential candidate, said on ABC's This Week. "There is nothing but innuendo, and I want to see some hard facts," Dean said. A front-page editorial in Babil, a newspaper run by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's son Odai, voiced similar skepticism. "Everybody knows that if they had concrete information, they would have put it on television all around the world before giving it to the inspection teams," the editorial said. At a news conference Sunday in Baghdad, Amir al-Saadi, an adviser to Saddam, invited the CIA to send officials to Iraq to show U.N. inspectors where they should look. A White House spokesman declined to comment on the invitation. President Bush canceled plans to travel to Africa in mid-January. White House aides indicated he wanted to be in Washington then to make key decisions on Iraq.