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 : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stephen O who wrote (4508)	11/28/2004 9:59:05 AM
From: tyc:>	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37063

>>the Europeans are very aware of what Iran is doing, as are the Russians.... the cia is/was useless. How convenient for you. Russian and French opinion confirms your own opinions..... Obviously if they agree with you they must be correct. If you think that is a substantial refutation of the posting, please think again.

To: Stephen O who wrote (4508)	11/28/2004 10:28:49 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 37063

> Mind you the invasion of Iraq has served to mellow the attitudes of Libya and now Syria. < Its a mistake to think the invasion of Iraq moderated Libya. Under economic sanctions dating back many years, and constant pressure from the IAEA and UN, Libya had been moving towards re-integration with international society for some time now. A key step in this process has been working with other governments and the UN to accept responsibility and redress victims killed as a result of Libya involvement in the PanAm and French airline ATA bombings. What's really behind a moderated Libya? An aging Ghadaffi, and a desire to break sanctions and sell more of its oil at 35 now 48$ a barrel so its economy can get a much needed shot of invigoration. There is absolutely no doubt the US State Department as well as French and British negotiators and the UN pressed Libya hard to take this next step. That the Bush administration holds Libya up as a moral victory in support of its actions in Iraq is no surprise, but it doesn't make sense. The Libyan turnabout is a good thing, but its more a victory of negotiation and circumstance than it is a victory as result of influence from the US invasion of Iraq. But again, what makes senses isn't always saleable to a gullible public.

To: Stephen O who wrote (4508)	11/28/2004 10:45:55 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 37063

Its also a mistake to look at Iran and Iraq as two separate issues; I doubt very much that the US did. Iraq has been on neoconservative radar screens as a target for a very long time. As early as September 17 2001 in the post 9/11 National Security Council planning meetings (NSC is "the" place where such things are decided, and it is chaired by the President) Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was already pushing to go into Iraq. He didn't come by this opinion only following 9/11, either. Iraq was done not because of CIA screw ups but because they knew they could invade Iraq and take down Husayn. The reality of the situation is irrelevant. In August 2001 the so-called "nuclear smoking gun" -- key evidence that purported to "prove", in Condeleeza Rice's own words a year later "these items can only really be used in nuclear weapons production -- had been "completely discredited" in the words of Dr. Woods, head of the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge laboratory (these are the people that design and build nuclear weapons production systems). The evidence? A shipment of 81mm aluminum tubes, which match in all characteristics 81mm aluminum tubes which Iraq had long used for short range artillery rockets. In the words of the US experts which build uranium centrifuges which I paraphrase: "sure, you could build a centrifuge with these, if you melted them down and refabricated them from scratch". (Iraq didn't have the capability to do this) In other words, this "evidence" was debunked. Invalid, Did not support the conclusions than the Neoconservative Hawks wanted supported. Months later, George W. Bush used this evidence in support of his State of the Union speech to Congress and the nation, saying it was just a matter of time before a mushroom cloud provided the final evidence of Iraq's dark desires. Congress had been humming and hawing over authorization to use force against Iraq - but this "evidence" was used in large part to seal the deal. A number of Oak Ridge and other Department of Energy experts were ordered not to speak to anyone, citing their oath to protect "national security". Don't blame the CIA, blame the administration. This is but one example of where the administration got the conclusion it wanted. It didn't want facts, it wanted justification. Now, step two: Iraq down, the US armed forces on its doorstep, what does Iran do? What does the US do? Frankly, I would not be surprised to see Iran test a nuclear device at any moment. With guns pointed at them from all directions, who can be surprised? Perhaps Iran and Israel will become the next Pakistan and India and figure out a way to live together once its clear they can both destroy each other. Other than Iran becoming unassailable, if it were to have nuclear weapons, what other reasons would the US have for keeping Iran bottled up? Well, for one, there are future energy contracts worth - by many estimates - trillions in the area. Iraq and Iran happen to sit on a huge portion of a very fertile oil basin that has easily accessible light oil reserves. That's a powerful motivation...