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: JohnM who wrote (64605)	1/6/2003 10:05:59 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Undercover war begins as US forces enter Iraq By John Donnelly in Washington and Tom Allard in Canberra The Boston Globe January 6 2003 About 100 United States special forces personnel and more than 50 CIA officers have been inside Iraq for at least four months, looking for missile-launchers, monitoring oil fields, marking minefields and helping their pilots target air-defence systems. The operations, which are said to have included some Australian, Jordanian and British commandos, are seen as part of the opening phase of a war, intelligence officials and military analysts say. This is despite the Bush Administration agreeing to the schedule of United Nations weapons inspections. A spokeswoman for the Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, rejected the suggestion that Australians - even individual soldiers attached to US or British commando units - had been involved in covert incursions. "Australians haven't been operating in Iraq," she said. Australia is believed to have a policy of not sending special forces on covert operations into hostile countries, but the spokeswoman described this as hypothetical. The action by US and British special forces in Iraq breaches international law because it is not sanctioned by the UN. But it also reflects the new warfare, which targets terrorists and hidden weapons and relies heavily on commando operations and pre-emptive strikes. On January 27 the UN inspectors will report on whether they have found evidence of a program to develop chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Soon after, the US is expected to announce whether Iraq is in "material breach" of UN resolutions and whether that is a trigger for an invasion aimed at toppling President Saddam Hussein. War preparations have been in full swing for months. The Pentagon says 60,000 troops are in the Gulf region, and that number could double in coming weeks. Even as President George Bush repeated at the weekend that it was not too late to avert war if Saddam complies with the inspectors, bombing by US jets over the no-fly zone, coupled with the commando operations, means that a fight is already unfolding. "We're bombing practically every day as we patrol the no-fly zones, taking out air defence batteries, and there are all kinds of CIA and special forces operations going on," said Timur Eads, a former US special operations officer. "I would call it the beginning of a war." Naseer Aruri, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, said the Bush Administration was being duplicitous in conducting undercover operations while agreeing to the UN inspections. "Certainly, the Arab world and the Islamic world would see it as being inconsistent with the weapons inspections, as well as an infringement on Iraq's sovereignty." A US intelligence official said the Iraq missions were separate from the work of the inspectors, but that the two operations might be moving in parallel. Some special forces members were following movements around suspected weapons sites, and this information could be handed to the UN teams. The US has so far refused to do so, out of concern that the reports might be passed to Iraqi officials. This story was found at: smh.com.au

To: JohnM who wrote (64605)	1/6/2003 10:12:14 AM
From: William B. Kohn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

John, with all due respect, I believe you are highly overstating the role of Sharon in the current problems. The intifada was planned to begin with his trip to the Temple Mount, rather than as a response to that trip. The one area where I agree with the liberals is that expansion of settlements has played a role in the problem being exaserbated, but I am not convinced that "some" of the expansion was indeed justifiable. I believe the Intifada was Arafat's response to Taba. The escalation, once the Intifada began, was obvious. It will end when one side believes that it is paying to high a price. I believe that Israel has learned a bitter lesson from Lebanon and is willing to pay an incredible price not to have another Lebanon on its western or Southern borders. As such, the cycle will continue until the Palestinians are willing to stop because the price is too high for them to pay. That may be sad BUT I believe this is a correct interpretation of the facts on the ground! bill@notanicepicture.com

To: JohnM who wrote (64605)	1/6/2003 12:05:48 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I gather from this post you are now agreeing with my point about Iraq and oil. No. Not in the least. Not even a little bit. Paul

To: JohnM who wrote (64605)	1/7/2003 7:20:50 PM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

I don't think the question is Arafat; rather it's the leadership selected by the Palestinians P's had Arafat and his thugs imposed on them by Oslo Agreement. They've never had a chance to choose other leadership. Possible replacements are murdered, exiled, etc. Arafat is just another corrupt ME ruler getting rich and feeding his fantasies - his record of kleptocracy demonstrates this. If what I say is true then what needs doing doesn't look like immediate negotiations but extended period of civil peace while they sort things out. That requires Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, etc., be vastly weakened or eliminated. Who is going to do that? Who is going to administer the place while they sort out?