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 : CONSPIRACY THEORIES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (36)	1/18/2005 3:59:19 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 418

Re: Mr. Hersh’s source(s) feed him with rumor, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist, and statements by officials that were never made.<< So, put that in your pipe and smoke it. LOL... Oh, but I never called for taking the US media-military complex's smoke and mirrors AT FACE VALUE!! With all due respect, Seymour Hersh belongs to the media-military complex and, accordingly, was fed with rumors and gossip --yet that doesn't mean that another war against Iran is pure fantasy! Let's agree on this: the US is bluffing... but "bluffing" ain't the same as "kidding": bluff [...] VERB: bluffed , bluff·ing , bluffs VERB: tr. 1. To mislead or deceive. 2. To impress, deter, or intimidate by a false display of confidence. 3. Games To try to mislead (opponents) in a card game by heavy betting on a poor hand or by little or no betting on a good one. VERB: intr. To engage in a false display of strength or confidence. education.yahoo.com I guess the following was aired AFTER you switched off the radio: Bush won't rule out action against Iran By Reuters \| January 18, 2005 WASHINGTON -- President Bush said yesterday he would not rule out military action against Iran if Tehran is not more forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons program. "I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table," Bush told NBC News, adding that he could act if Iran "continues to stonewall the international community about the existence of its nuclear weapons program." Iran denies that it has been trying to make nuclear weapons. Bush's comments followed Pentagon criticism yesterday of a published report that it was mounting reconnaissance missions in Iran to identify potential nuclear and other targets. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said Sunday's article in The New Yorker magazine was "so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed." The report said Bush authorized secret commando groups and other special-forces military units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia. DiRita and other Pentagon officials did not comment on whether military forces had been doing reconnaissance in Iran. The New York Times reported today the Bush administration imposed penalties on eight Chinese firms it thinks aided Iran in improving ballistic missiles. The State Department did not name the technology allegedly exported. The firms are barred from doing business with the US government. © Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company. boston.com I guess the President's statement overrules any "disclaimer" by some Pentagon underling.... Gus

To: sea_urchin who wrote (36)	1/18/2005 4:35:50 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 418

Beijing's delicate balancing act in Africa By Paul Mooney International Herald Tribune Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Oil and freedom BEIJING In the 1960s and 1970s, Chinese engineers were hard at work throughout Africa, constructing stadiums, laying roads and building hospitals in the cold war battle for the hearts and minds of third world citizens. The politics and revolutionary idealism behind these projects faded in the 1980s but a fast-growing China with a voracious appetite for resources is now back with a vengeance. Almost every African country today bears examples of China's emerging presence, from oil fields in the east to farms in the south. From 2002 to 2003, two-way trade climbed 50 percent to $18.5 billion - the fastest growth China has seen with any geographical area - and is tipped to soar to $30 billion by 2006. China's rampant economic expansion, which gives it a huge appetite for raw materials, is the major factor driving its long march across the African continent. The second biggest consumer of oil after the United States, China is searching the world for new sources of energy, and Africa is fast becoming an important supplier. China has oil partnerships in Sudan, Chad, Nigeria, Angola and Gabon, and is exploring a collaboration in Kenya. Beijing has pressed history to promote its economic agenda, attempting to win African sympathy by emphasizing the common history of exploitation that China and African nations have suffered at the hands of Western colonialists. This is a common theme in the pages of African newspapers, where commentators argue that Western investors exploit Africa, while Chinese companies tend to invest in businesses that are beneficial. Still, there is some debate among Africans over whether China is exploiting or benefiting their continent. The Chinese are busy developing much-needed African infrastructure: roads and rail lines in Ethiopia, Sudan and Rwanda; a new hospital in Sudan; a farm and a bridge across the Nile. But at what cost? Moeletsi Mbeki, deputy chairman of the South African Institute of International Affairs, wrote recently on the Web site AllAfrica.com that China "is both a tantalizing opportunity and a terrifying threat to South Africa." On the one hand, he said that China was the tonic that mineral-rich but economically ailing South Africa needs. But he added that exports from China and Hong Kong to his country are double those from the rest of Africa and almost double what South Africa exports to China. He called the trade relations between South Africa and China "a replay of the old story of South Africa's trade with Europe." Mbeki added, "We sell them raw materials and they sell us manufactured goods with a predictable result - an unfavorable trade balance." Meanwhile, however, many African nations are pleased that no political strings are attached to China's friendship, with the obvious exception that they must not recognize Taiwan and must affirm the "one China" policy. He Wenping, director of the African Studies Section at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, says that China and Africa share the view that countries should not meddle in each other's affairs. "We don't believe that human rights should stand above sovereignty," He says. "We have a different view on this, and African countries share our view." Zimbabwe is a case in point. After Americans and Europeans withdrew from the country because of the government's destructive land reform program and poor human rights record, China stepped in to work with the embattled, and resource-rich, African nation. Sudan is another example. China National Petroleum Corporation won an oil exploitation bid there in 1995, and when Washington cut ties two years later, the Chinese were ready to fill the void left by retreating Western oil companies. They helped to develop oil fields, built refineries, and laid two oil pipelines. Sudan, which was an oil importer before the Chinese arrived, now earns $2 billion in oil exports each year, half of which goes to China. But more important for Sudan is Beijing's political support. China has vowed to veto any sanctions imposed against Sudan. When the UN Security Council tabled a resolution in September to punish Sudan for failing to stop atrocities in the troubled western region of Darfur, it was forced to water down the proposal to avoid a Chinese veto. International pressure is growing for China to use its political influence to pressure Sudan, which critics say is using its oil dollars to fund the military actions against its black African population in Darfur. Some observers say that China, which relishes its relatively new position as an international mover, will not want to be seen as an obstacle to the solution of the problem in Sudan. If sanctions were to block oil from Iran and Sudan, China would be forced to scramble to find other sources, which could be difficult. The question is whether Beijing is willing to sacrifice oil and its African partnerships to salvage its image as a responsible global force. Copyright © 2005 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved iht.com

To: sea_urchin who wrote (36)	1/18/2005 5:06:45 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 418

Crazy "They think in Iran you can just go in and hit the facilities and destabilise the government. They believe they can get rid of a few crazy mullahs and bring in the young guys who like Gap jeans, all the world's problems are solved. I think it's delusional," the former CIA officer said. However, others believe that at a minimum military strikes could set back Iran's nuclear programme several years. Reuel Marc Gerecht, another former CIA officer who is now a leading [Judeo]-conservative voice on Iran at the American Enterprise Institute, said: "It would certainly delay [the programme] and it can be done again. It's not a one-time affair. I would be shocked if a military strike could not delay the programme." Mr Gerecht said the internal debate in the administration was only just beginning. "This administration does not really have an Iran policy," he said. "Iraq has been a fairly consuming endeavour, but it's getting now towards the point where people are going to focus on [Iran] hard and have a great debate." That debate could be brought to a head in the next few months. Diplomats and officials in Vienna following the Iranian nuclear saga at the International Atomic Energy Agency expect the Iran dispute to re-erupt by the middle of this year, predicting a breakdown of the diplomatic track the EU troika of Britain, Germany and France are pursuing with Tehran. The Iran-EU agreement, reached in November, was aimed at getting Iran to abandon the manufacture of nuclear fuel which can be further refined to bomb-grade. Now the Iranians are feeding suspicion by continuing to process uranium concentrate into gaseous form, a breach "not of the letter but of the spirit of the agreement," said one European diplomat. Opinions differ widely over how long it would take Iran to produce a deliverable nuclear warhead, and some analysts believe that Iranian scientists have encountered serious technical difficulties. "The Israelis believe that by 2007, the Iranians could enrich enough uranium for a bomb. Some of us believe it could be the end of this decade," said David Albright, a nuclear weapons expert at the Institute for Science and International Security. A recent war-game carried out by retired military officers, intelligence officials and diplomats for the Atlantic Monthly, came to the conclusion that there were no feasible military options and if negotiations and the threat of sanctions fail, the US might have to accept Iran as a nuclear power. However, Sam Gardiner, a retired air force colonel who led the war-game, acknowledged that the Bush administration might not come to the same conclusion. "Everything you hear about the planning for Iraq suggests logic may not be the basis for the decision," he said. Mr Gerecht, who took part in the war-game but dissented from the conclusion, believes the Bush White House, still mired in Iraq, has yet to make up its mind. "The bureaucracy will come down on the side of doing nothing. The real issue is: will the president and the vice president disagree with them? If I were a betting man, I'd bet the US will not use pre-emptive force. However, I would not want to bet a lot." guardian.co.uk