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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Threshold who wrote (29508)	10/3/2003 3:53:56 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

It appears the Kissing of some French A$$ has begun...... The Loss in the Poles is having its effect... I now expect some real brown nosing to kick in..... T "Door is open for French companies" in Iraq: US official Fri Oct 3,10:51 AM ET Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo! PARI (AFP) - "The door is open for French companies" to take part in rebuilding Iraq (news - web sites)'s economy -- but many will likely find themselves having to play second fiddle to main US contractors, a US state department official visiting Paris said. "The door is open for French companies to participate in infrastructure contracts in Iraq" because "we're open to companies from all over the world regarding the rebuilding of Iraq," US Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs Alan Larson told a media conference. While European firms could pick up contracts tendered by international aid funds, including in the oil sector, Larson said contracts held by the US Agency for International Development "will go to US companies -- but it will certainly open the door to participation from French companies as subcontractors." The United States is struggling to raise commitments from other countries to help rebuild Iraq in time for a donors' conference scheduled October 23-24 in Madrid. So far, few have stepped forward to offer significant money alongside the 20 billion dollars (17 billion euros) Washington has already pledged along with the 67 billion dollars it has set aside to pay for its military occupation. The European Union (news - web sites) -- traditionally the biggest aid donor in the world -- has proposed a relatively modest 200 million euros (225 million dollars), and left it up to its individual members to cough up more if they so choose. Larson expressed optimism that EU states would be generous, saying the proposed amount was "a first commitment." He added: "Everything must be discussed in the capitals during the three weeks we have until the meeting in Madrid." However France and Germany are unlikely to dig up much money because of their opposition to the war and now the way Washington is keeping the United Nations (news - web sites) on the sidelines. But even Britain and Spain, whose governments backed the war, have been reticient. On top of that, some US lawmakers have criticised the amount of US money being spent, saying some or all should be given as a loan, not a grant as intended. That has elicited fears by US officials that other countries might be scared off from donating money and that Iraq would suffocate under its mountain of debt, which is already estimated at more than 100 billion dollars, much of it to France and Russia. Optimistic forecasts on Iraqi oil revenue are put at around five billion dollars a year after 2005. That is higher than the amount being pumped out now through infrastructure targeted for sabotage and rundown after years of sanctions, and probably not even enough to fund a national budget.

To: Threshold who wrote (29508)	10/3/2003 10:44:49 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 89467

Yes, he did recuse himself. Cheney simply refuses to answer anything, going into deep hiding only to appear at fund-raising luncheons or out on hunting trips with buddy, Ken Lay (I presume Lay is with him). I don't know how they continue to get away with it.

To: Threshold who wrote (29508)	10/5/2003 12:40:40 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

An Overstretched Army in Iraq ________________________________ Lead Editorial The New York Times Published: October 5, 2003 nytimes.com Now that it is clear the United States faces a lengthy military occupation of Iraq, requiring perhaps 100,000 troops for the foreseeable future, it is possible to begin calculating how the war may damage the American armed forces. Since the United States cannot expect much additional help from other countries or from the fledgling Iraqi security forces, the burdens of occupation will start to strain severely the Army's capacity to deploy trained and rested combat forces worldwide in a matter of months. In the longer term, the lives of thousands of military families will be disrupted, the Army Reserve system so carefully built up when America moved to a smaller, volunteer Army three decades ago will be put at severe risk and the global reach of American foreign policy will almost inevitably be diminished. This distressing equation is yet another regrettable consequence of the unilateral way America went to war in Iraq. Like the mournful daily roll call of additional dead and wounded soldiers, the reluctance of other countries to help pay for American-run reconstruction efforts and the blows to America's reputation for responsible leadership, it is a cost President Bush never acknowledged when he sold the public last winter on the wisdom of going to war without United Nations authority. The early weeks of combat seemed to vindicate the Pentagon's faith that victory could be achieved with far fewer ground troops than many military analysts predicted. Yet the very speed of that campaign led to severe military problems later on. Vanguard American forces arrived in urban areas, including parts of Baghdad, in insufficient numbers to prevent looting of weapons sites, hospitals, schools and power grids. In the Sunni Arab heartland, forces loyal to Saddam Hussein melted away and may now be attacking American troops. Now nobody realistically expects that the size of the American occupation force in Iraq can be significantly reduced anytime soon. On Thursday, the commander of American ground forces there predicted it would take years before Iraqis could maintain security, allowing American forces to withdraw. At least 100,000 American troops are likely to be needed for quite some time. Yet, unless rotation patterns are altered or troops are reassigned from other postings, the Army will soon begin to have trouble assembling that many troops for Iraq, as combat-weary divisions come due for relief. Nearly half the Army's 33 combat brigades are now in the Persian Gulf region. Replacing all of them with fresh units would leave the Army hard pressed to meet its obligations elsewhere, including Afghanistan and the Korean peninsula. A Congressional study last month found that unless major adjustments are made, the Army will be forced to shrink its occupation force to less than half its present size within 18 months. None of those adjustments look attractive. They include rushing units back into the field after shorter rest periods; making greater use of overtaxed reserves; reassigning rapid reaction, Special Forces and Marine units to occupation duties; and cutting other international commitments. Army Reserve and National Guard units are already being used excessively, in part because critical specialties like military policing and intelligence analysis are concentrated in those units. Reservists are usually older, part-time soldiers with jobs and family responsibilities. Tens of thousands of them are now serving 12-month tours in Iraq. Some have been mobilized for most of the past two years. The Pentagon's long-term goal is for reservists to be called to active duty for no more than one year out of every six. The Pentagon would like to expand its deployable forces by hiring civilians to fill tens of thousands of clerical jobs now held by active duty troops. That will help in the future but will not produce significant results soon enough to make a difference in Iraq. Eventually, the Army will also very likely have to add about two new divisions. These must be staffed, trained and equipped — a process the Congressional Budget Office estimates would take five years and cost nearly $20 billion. America now spends some $400 billion a year on defense, more than all other major military powers combined. The best answer to the strains being felt by the Army is not to extend combat tours, cannibalize forces from other missions or undertake vast new spending. A wiser course would be to return to the sound practice of a half-century and treat war only as a last resort, to be undertaken with as wide a coalition of allies as possible. Doing it Mr. Bush's way unnecessarily risks undermining the fighting strength of even the world's strongest military power.