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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Canadian Oil & Gas Companies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: okey who wrote (5566)	11/11/1998 4:52:00 PM
From: Yarek Szolomicki	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24892

Okey\Imperial\Iraq Does Imperial have any holdings outside of North America? If so any oil company with properties outside of N.A. would be subject to sabotage.

To: okey who wrote (5566)	11/12/1998 4:56:00 PM
From: Kerm Yerman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24892

Okey - Paul / This article more-or-less supports my view. Pressure grows for U.S. to finish off Saddam By David Storey WASHINGTON, Nov 12 (Reuters) - As the U.S. military prepares for an assault on Iraq, Washingtonsays it wants this to be the final step in a seven-year dance of confrontation and compromise overBaghdad's weapons of mass destruction. But many analysts and commentators believe that to secure this, the United States must stop trying justto contain Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and focus on driving him from power. "Saddam cannot be allowed to stay in a box in which he can make and hide his deadly poisons," wroteJim Hoagland in the Washington Post. "Only a serious, focused campaign to liberate Iraq finally from his rule can justify a return to war by the world's only superpower against a poor, broken nation." The conservative Weekly Standard wrote: "The world will never be safe, and U.S. allies will never besecure, so long as Saddam is in charge in Baghdad." Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, declared: "Saddam has to be removed from power." Since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, the debate has raged over whether U.S. forces should have driven on into Iraq after ousting Iraqi invasion troops from Kuwait and crushed, or at least neutralized, Saddam's government. Whether or not it was militarily feasible, former President George Bush ruled against it at the time, saying it would have gone beyond the United Nations mandate under which the U.S.-led international coalition was operating. Targeting Saddam personally would also violate U.S. law forbidding such assassinations, although President Bill Clinton's top aides have made clear that there would be no mourning if the Iraqi leader were caught in a missile attack. Defense Secretary William Cohen said on Thursday the Clinton administration was sick and tired of the cycle of Saddam's defiance, U.S. threats and military build-up, international tension and eventual Iraqi compromise. "People are fed up with this. (Saddam) cannot continue in the kind of cat-and-mouse game," he told reporters on a visit to a Navy base at Norfolk, Virginia. The administration insists the purpose of strikes would be to force Saddam to reverse his ban on U.N. inspections of his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons facilities. In the absence of inspections being resumed, the intention is to severely "degrade" the facilities and prevent Iraq from being able to threaten its neighbors. Some analysts question the strategy, saying Saddam can easily hide his weapons from air attack. Missiles and bombing could be effective, but only if carried out with massive force, undermining the pillars of Saddam's power, they say. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter said Congress should be recalled from recess to give its opinion on military action. He told NBC's Today show: "I talked to a top administration official yesterday who conceded that there was no plan as to what was going to happen after the initial attacks and I think it is very important to know what is going to happen." Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott said long-term planning had indeed been done. "We have thought well beyond hour one, day one and week one ... there are lots of way we can make sure (Saddam) loses on day one and thereafter." But publicly, at least, Saddam is not the target. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said on Thursday: "The international community, the United States, looks forward to a day when there is an Iraq government that respects human rights and respects international law." "We are not in that place right now, and therefore our policy is to limit (Saddam's) ability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten his neighbors," he said. Asked what it might take to "Get to that place," Lockhart said: "Well, we have worked in the past with opposition groups. As you know the president signed legislation recently that will expand that effort." He was referring to the "Iraq Liberation Act," which Clinton signed on Oct. 31, increasing U.S. support for Iraqi opposition groups. Clinton said in a statement then he wanted Iraq to become a "freedom-loving and law-abiding" member of the international community. "The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership," he added.