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: NickSE who wrote (67279)	1/20/2003 10:38:03 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Ghostrider; Here's a more complete link: Turkey to Allow U.S. to Use Bases Under a Smaller Plan Dexter Filkins, NYTimes, January 20, 2003 Turkey's foreign minister said today that his government had decided to allow the United States to use Turkish bases for an attack on Iraq, but that Turkish public opinion was forcing them to drastically scale back the American plans. Yasar Yakis, the foreign minister, said in an interview that his government had instructed the Turkish military to draft a plan providing for an American force that would be just large enough to tie up Iraqi troops based in the northern part of the country so a larger American force could attack Baghdad from the south. ... "What we said for the Americans was, the northern front should not be made meaningless," Mr. Yakis said. "The importance of the northern front is to fix Iraqi military strength, which is positioned in the north. It should be a sufficiently big force to fix them there so that Iraqi soldiers do not leave the northern front and go to the southern front. "We instructed the military authorities to negotiate with the American side and find out what is *the figure which is necessary not to make the American northern front meaningless," Mr. Yakis added. He said the American and Turkish military planners had not yet agreed on a final plan. Still, if Mr. Yakis' scenario holds true, it would represent a drastic scaling back of American military plans* to confront Saddam Hussein's army outside of the main theater in Kuwait. American military planners regard a northern front as crucial in an Iraqi operation, believing that it would make any war shorter and less bloody than one limited to a force attacking from the south. ... An American presence in northern Iraq is regarded as vital in ensuring that Iraq's Kurds, who predominate in the country's northern areas, do not try to secede from Iraq. Mr. Yakis said one of the options considered for a scaled-down northern front is an American force of about 15,000 troops. Under that plan, Mr. Yakis said, *a pair of American brigades of about 5,000 troops each* would attack in separate points in northern Iraq, with another brigade standing by in reserve. ... nytimes.com -- Carl P.S. 15,000 would be about one division.

To: NickSE who wrote (67279)	1/21/2003 9:08:30 PM
From: NickSE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Some background reading on the countries against a US led strike on Iraq.... France and Russia Have More Than Regional Peace in Mind (11/20/02) archive.abcnews.go.com Hopeful for Oil Deals Saddam badly wants U.N. to revoke its economic sanctions, which ban the sale of most Iraqi oil. As a result, Iraq has lost an estimated $100 billion in oil revenue and is deeply in debt to more than one Security Council member. Iraq owes cash-strapped Russia $7 billion and France another $5 billion — debts it cannot possibly repay until the sanctions are lifted. Iraq’s oil production has been throttled from a pre-war 3.5 million barrels per day to roughly 1.3 million, said John Lichtblau, chairman of the Petroleum Research Industry Foundation. Iraq has the potential to produce 4 million to 5 million barrels per day, he added, and both the French and Russians would dearly love to help them reach that goal. "Iraq owes Russia a lot of money, this will be one easy way of getting it back," he said. While foreign oil deals represent a new frontier for Russian firms, the French are trying to recapture former market share. "The French would like to reestablish themselves as an oil power in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq," Lichtblau added. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Liberal hypocrisy: high price for UN approval (10/2/02) townhall.com The Oct. 7 issue of the New Republic features a fascinating account, written by Asla Aydintasbas, of what these various nations want in return for their votes. China's vote -or abstention, same difference -is considered the cheapest since it has so few commercial interests in Iraq. All they want is for the United States to either support, or turn a blind eye to, a Chinese crackdown on Muslim minorities in Western China. The United States also tossed into the pot an agreement to soften its stance toward the Tibet issue; we're leaning on the Dalai Lama to lighten up in his negotiations with the Chinese government. Then there's France, which has publicly carved out the most self-righteous position when it comes to American "imperialism" and a potential war with Iraq. Privately, the French are very much open to negotiations. France has huge oil and other commercial interests in Iraq (despite the sanctions). America is working hard to promise the French that if France goes along with its historic ally - I mean America, if you weren't sure - they won't be frozen out of the new Iraqi economic order. Now, the French may not end up supporting a U.S. invasion of Iraq, but if they do support us, money, not principle, will have won the argument. And then there's Russia. Russia's interests in Iraq aren't as big as France's but they're still considerable. First, Iraq owes the Russians $8 billion, and Russia wants its dough. A starting point of any conversation about Russian support is a promise that Russia will be paid back. Other chips in the deal include America's support for Russia's WTO bid and a quieter U.S. State Department when it comes to Russian human rights abuses in Chechnya and Georgia. In short, if the United Nations agrees to support an American military effort it won't be because the U.N. put principle above self-interest; it will be because various nations were willing to horse trade with blood and oil. Which raises the question, why is it morally superior to work with the U.N. when working with the U.N. means not only more bloodshed elsewhere in the world, but a deterioration of America's moral authority? I remain baffled.