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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2685)	1/23/2003 4:07:03 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 15987

Russia, China Join U.S. Allies to Avert Iraq War Thu January 23, 2003 By Hassan Hafidh and Caroline Drees BAGHDAD/ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Washington looked increasingly isolated in its stance toward Iraq Thursday as key powers lined up to oppose war. China and Russia joined U.S. allies France and Germany in rejecting military action. As the United States and Britain continued their troop build-up in the Gulf, Middle East nations also met Thursday to discuss ways of averting a conflict. The stand taken by Paris, Beijing and Moscow means a majority of the five veto-wielding permanent members on the U.N. Security Council are against rushing into war. The other two members are the United States and Britain. However Washington has said it could launch military action without Security Council backing. In Berlin, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder vowed he and French President Jacques Chirac would do all they could to avert war. "War may never be considered unavoidable," he said. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said there were no grounds to use force at the moment. "There is still political and diplomatic leeway to resolve the Iraq issue," he said in Athens. He agreed with France and Germany that U.N. inspectors in Iraq should be allowed to press on with their job of looking for evidence of weapons of mass destruction. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said Beijing's position was "extremely close to that of France." Washington accuses Iraq of hiding nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and has threatened to attack if Baghdad does not disarm in line with a U.N. resolution passed in November. Iraq denies possessing any banned weapons. The U.N. inspectors, who are due to present a key report to the United Nations Monday, have said they need several more months to complete their work. However, President Bush has warned time is running out for Iraq. He is massing 150,000 troops in the region and has said he is ready to use them, with or without a Security Council resolution, if he considers Iraq has not disarmed. MIDEAST MEETING Foreign ministers and diplomats from Iraq's neighbors -- Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria -- were meeting along with regional heavyweight Egypt, in Istanbul Thursday to discuss a way out of the crisis. "The countries ... (at) the Istanbul meeting all have friendly relations with the United States," Iraqi Ambassador Talip Abid Salih El Duleymi said. "We want them to use those relations to dissuade the United States from its intention to attack." Iraq urged Turkey to reject U.S. requests for military support in any attack on Baghdad. The United States is looking to Turkey for use of its air bases and frontiers in the event of military action. Ankara opposes war but may be hard pressed to deny help to its closest NATO ally. The United States has asked NATO to consider several measures to provide indirect military assistance in case of an invasion. NATO Secretary-General George Robertson Thursday denied reports of a "bust-up" over providing support. Diplomats said France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg had blocked a decision in NATO on whether to prepare supporting measures, notably defending Turkey's southern flank. But Robertson said the only disagreement was over timing. SEPT. 11 "A PICNIC IN COMPARISON" In Iraq, U.N. experts continued their hunt for banned weapons as a local newspaper warned that U.S. troops faced a fate worse than the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States if they attacked. "The events of September 11 will be a picnic compared with what would happen to America if it commits aggression against Iraq," the Babel paper of President Saddam Hussein's son Uday said Thursday. It was referring to the suicide plane attacks in New York and Washington which killed more than 3,000 people in 2001. The U.N. inspectors visited at least five sites Thursday, including food stores, a fiberglass production plant, a missile complex and a university. reuters.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2685)	1/28/2003 11:15:07 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Sorry for the late reply, I was away... We have NO proof that offered that this is an authorized representative of the United States. Hence the reason I said "allegations" and "supposed to be". The paper that published it says it has other proof. Perhaps they learned from their betters that it is possible to say "We have proof but won't show you" <g> But if it is, might it be tantamount to sending a message to Ankara that the US will work with whoever provides it support, even if that might be Turkish Kurds?? That is a Very Bad Idea, indeed, which is probably why the US officials are vehemently denying anything to do with the PKK. Let me remind you that PKK is officially considered a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION by the US. If the US indeed collaborates with a known terrorist organization while engaging in a "war against terror", that would shoot down any credibility they have left. It would be no different than collaborating with the IRA (Blair would not be a happy camper, I guess). The double standard inherent here ("Terrorists are bad, except the ones who kill others than Americans") is enough for decades of ridicule. think about the repercussions of Turkey not providing support for the US overthrow of Saddam.. Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable to collaborate with and support a terrorist organization if it somehow benefits your own plans? I hope not, because it is VERY hypocritical. If we are to believe Bush's assertion that Saddam supported/collaborated with Al-Qaeda, how is that any more damning than US supporting/collaborating with PKK? The repercussions of not cooperating with the US at this point have mostly to do with the economic crisis the country is in and the billions of dollars it needs in aid this year. Refusing to ally themselves with the US means losing the USD 4 bn in proposed aids for this year, which Turkey cannot afford to do at this point. This uncertainty/risk is in fact why the country currently has about 58% interest rate on its t-bills. Considering that the devaluation of the TRL against the USD was 15% in 2002, and that the country is currently in an IMF program, you can see there is serious real interest rates being offered even if 2003 devaluation turns out to be double that of 2002. We took a significant position in Turkish t-bills last week, by the way, which is about when I started to follow news from Turkey this closely <g> And possibly the removal of the PKK from the terrorist list (since they haven't been actively violent in years that I've heard of) If I recall correctly, the timing of PKK's cessation of violent activities corresponds with the capture of their leader, which might go to show that Turkey was successful in figthing this organization. However, it does not show that they are now "nice guys" because they behaved while their leader was in jail condemned to death penalty (turned to "life imprisonment" a couple of months ago). How about this: If Al-Qaeda did nothing for two years, would you be OK with it being taken off the list of terrorist organizations? Or would you still want them condamned and their leaders captured and punished?