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: Bilow who wrote (101327)	6/12/2003 7:51:44 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

But you don't have a single stick of evidence that proves that Iraq was still doing that in 2003. Bilow.. was the UN conducting inspections, or was it supposed to be conducting an investigation? Bottom line.. So long as Saddam's regime was intransigent about accounting for all of its weapons (which we both seem to agree upon), they were in violation of each and every UNSC resolution as well as the 1991 cease fire agreement. Violate a cease fire agreement and it equates to a recommencment of hostilities. And that's essentially what Bush did, force the UNSC and Iraq to come to a point where either Saddam was in compliance, or the Desert Storm would recommence for the purpose of regime change within Iraq. Pretty simple, and entirely legal within the context of the UN. The folly that we needed UN approval to exact regime change is absolutely wrong. The UN should NOT get in the business of deciding what regimes should be changed or not. However, IT SHOULD determine when certain regimes have become a danger to regional stability and maintenance of peace and authorize its member states to take whatever actions are required to restore the situation. And that forces the "target" government, in this case Saddam's, to realize that they won't necessarily be "saved by a veto" (even a US veto) once the UNSC has determined Chapter VII should be invoked. If the permanent members are able to reach sufficient consensus that Chapter VII should be invoked, no more "politics" should be played with regard to how that resolution is satisfied. It should be left to those nations which are risking their soldiers in carrying out that binding resolution. This is just like the Vietnam war, in a certain way. Long after the end of the hopeless war, conservatives were still yammering about how "winnable" it was. Okay, now you've got a war in Iraq. Vietnam this, Vietnam that... I really despise it when people constantly bring up the Vietnam analogy when they don't really understand anything more than "quagmire". Vietnam was lost because the will to win was not there, and neither were the strategies authorized that would have won the war. When you permit your enemy to violate the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia, using them as sanctuaries and supplies zones, but are unwilling to do so yourself in pursuing them, you've set yourself up for defeat. This is what DOD leadership means when they say "no more Vietnams".. NO more political "rules of engagement" and having targets selected by the White House. The way you win a war is the political leadership setting out the mission parameters.. Telling them what the military can, and cannot do, and letting the generals do the rest. Give them the objective, don't tell them how to obtain it. Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (101327)	6/13/2003 2:33:05 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraqis Buying and Hoarding Guns, Grenades nytimes.com The NRA must be thrilled. Iraqis Buying and Hoarding Guns, Grenades By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 11:36 a.m. ET BASRA, Iraq (AP) -- Hussein fidgets in his chair and looks around as he answers questions about his arms business. After much coaxing and encouragement from friends, he softens and describes his trade as ``booming.'' ``I get numerous individual requests for a pistol, a rifle or a grenade, and it's same day delivery,'' he says. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, weapons are everywhere in Iraq, left over from the disbanded army or looted from government storehouses. People are not only hoarding them, they're buying -- and the market is ready to meet the demand. ``An order for tens of rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other similar weapons is usually delivered within 24 hours,'' says Hussein, 26, who packs a pistol hidden underneath his shirt ``for personal protection. We have no security.'' Hussein would not identify who is making the large orders, but confirmed that three political parties were his biggest customers. Some say many are buying with the hope that coalition forces will offer cash payments in exchange for weapons -- something Saddam did after crushing a 1991 uprising in southern Iraq. Many people then turned in at least part of their arms cache. But this time around, coalition forces are offering little more than encouragement and Iraqis don't seem in a hurry to dispose of their weapons. The U.S.-led occupation government is asking Iraqis to turn in their arms before a two-week amnesty ends Saturday and a promised crackdown begins next week. Cooperation has been light, with military officials saying Friday that Iraqis dropped off 115 pistols, 75 semiautomatic rifles or shotguns, 406 automatic rifles, 45 machine guns, 152 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, 11 anti-aircraft weapons and 266 grenades. In Basra, military vehicles stop at major intersections to urge residents to turn in heavy weapons. ``Empty and dismantle the weapons and place them in clear plastic bags, which can be found at coalition troops control points,'' an announcement in Arabic blared through a loudspeaker placed on a military vehicle. ``We're taking all heavy weapons out of circulation, such as RPGs, (rocket-propelled grenades) grenades and howitzers,'' said Lt. Col. Duncan Bruce, Commanding Officer of 1 Battalion, Duke of Wellington's regiment, which controls much of rural southern Iraq. The ``weapons amnesty'' runs from until June 15, but many say it is more of risk to hand over their arms than to keep them. ``We've always had weapons. Even under the brutal regime of Saddam, we had weapons. It's a tradition that goes back decades. I will not give up my weapons, especially not now, when the only security I have is my weapon,'' said Ali, who runs a cigarette kiosk in Basra. To make his point, he opened a cabinet underneath the stand to reveal an AK-47. ``I work hard, and I will not stand helplessly and allow some thug to rob me,'' he said. Coalition forces agree, and are allowing weapons for personal protection for now at least. ``We'll allow people to hold some personal protection in the house, but they can't travel around with it, Bruce said, adding that troops will remove weapons and arrest anyone caught intimidating people with them. Fed up with crime, Iraqis say they also won't tolerate people abusing the situation and arms dealers like Hussein say they have their limits. ``I don't sell to children, angry people, or those I know who have a running feud or a vendetta,'' he said.